Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Penzance Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SPAIN.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value in 1937 of exports to and of imports from the respective areas controlled by the Spanish Government and the Insurgent authorities, and the value in the same year of medical supplies shipped to each of those areas?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cumberland, North (Mr. W. Roberts) on 21st June.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that include a reference to medical supplies?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member looks at the answer he will see that it is impossible to give this information, because separate particulars in regard to individual parts of Spain are not recorded.

FRUITS (DISTRIBUTION COSTS).

Mr. Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what answer has been received from the Food Council to the proposal for an inquiry into the costs of retail or wholesale distribution of fruits which was passed on to them?

Mr. Stanley: The Food Council, I understand, do not consider that the suggested inquiry would be likely to lead to any useful results.

Mr. Parker: Do the Food Council ever do anything active?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir; they do a number of active things.

CANNED BEEF (IMPORTS).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade particulars of the various complaints he has received owing to the shortage of foreign canned beef, caused by the voluntary arrangement for the limitation of imports of the same; and, in view of the fact that the price has increased, attributable to the quota, will he consider reviewing of same?

Mr. Stanley: I have received no recent complaints of inadequate supplies of canned beef. I understand that the price of certain categories was increased on 1st July. The quantities of canned beef to be imported are now a matter for the consideration of the International Beef Conference, who have recommended in 1937 and the current year appreciable increases on the quotas compared with 1936.

Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the reduction of the quota the prices have gone up considerably to the poorest people, and that they have difficulty in obtaining supplies?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member had listened to the reply he would have heard that there has been no reduction of the quota. There has been an increase this year and last year in comparison with 1936.

MEXICO (OIL, SALE).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make any statement in regard to the agreement which has been signed by the Mexican Government for the sale of $10,000,000 worth of oil and the effects this agreement may have on British interests?

Mr. Stanley: The only information I have concerning an agreement of the kind referred to is what has appeared in the Press. I am not, therefore, in a position to make any statement as to the effect which such an agreement might have on British interests.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the possible serious repercussions on the trade between this country and Mexico, and the relationship between the two countries, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to consider this agreement, to make inquiries and to report to the House, or be prepared to answer questions on the matter?

Mr. Stanley: I shall certainly try to get all the information I can, but the hon. Member must realise that our Minister is no longer in Mexico.

EXPORT CREDITS (SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE).

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any steps are contemplated to extend credits to any of the countries of the Balkans and South-eastern Europe on terms similar to those which were arranged in the recent Anglo-Turkish agreement?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The facilities provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department are available to United Kingdom exporters for trade with any overseas country, provided that the business is judged to be sound and the security available to be adequate. It will be realised, however, that the arrangement of credit guarantees is a complicated matter and the same procedure may not always be applicable in different cases.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that extra facilities are afforded to those countries in South-Eastern Europe which would really benefit from any exchange of trade between them and this country to the mutual advantage of both?

Mr. Hudson: I said in the course of the recent Debate, that the question of those other countries was under consideration at the present time.

MILLED FLOUR (IMPORTS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state in hundredweights the total amount of milled flour imported into Great Britain during 1935, 1936, and 1937?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will find particulars of the imports of products of the milling and allied industries during the years 1935, 1936, and 1937 on page II of the issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for December last.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend tell me in respect to these amounts whether the offals relating to the flour are also imported?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at page 11 of the Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation in the United Kingdom for December last, and if there is any information that he then requires, perhaps he will ask me again.

Mr. Macquisten: Why should not all the flour be milled in this country?

COMPULSORY INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLES).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Departments concerned have given consideration to the report on Compulsory Insurance; and is it intended that legislation shall be introduced to implement the recommendations contained in the report?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on 21st June, to which I have nothing to add at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

ACCIDENTS.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to hold inquiries into the accidents which occurred to the steamships "Quarrington Court," "Annagher" and "Ino," on, respectively, 7th December, 1937, 11th December, 1937, and 14th October, 1937; and what are the reasons for the delay in holding these inquiries?

Mr. Stanley: In each case the statutory preliminary inquiry was begun immediately after the casualty occurred. As a result of the preliminary inquiries, formal public investigations were ordered, and these will be held as and when the necessary technical evidence is ready and as and when the essential witnesses are


available. The public investigation into the loss of the steamship "Ino" will open at Bristol on 20th July, and it is expected that it will be possible for the other two cases to be heard early in September. There has been no avoidable delay in holding these inquiries.

SKILLED RATINGS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent there is now any shortage of skilled men, such as boatswains, qualified able-bodied seamen, junior engineers and merchant seamen; and what action he intends taking in the matter?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that there is at the present time no general shortage of the ratings to which the hon. Member refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

INTERPRETERSHIP EXAMINATIONS (TERRITORIAL OFFICERS).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Territorial Army are upon the same footing as Regular officers as regards the £50 grant to officers successful in passing Army interpretership examinations; and, if not, whether, in view of his desire to give encouragement to the Territorial Army, he will remove any discrimination in this connection against Territorial officers?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): For an officer to be selected for language study he must hold a permanent commission in the Regular Army. The object of the present system is to ensure an adequate number of regular Staff Officers with certain required language qualifications. A language award is not earned merely by passing an interpretership examination, but the officer concerned is sent abroad in his military capacity for a period of as much as three years in some cases.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing this grant to Territorial officers who have to go abroad to study for these examinations?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think my answer shows that it would be difficult in the case of Territorial officers, who only undertake

to serve in their own localities, to send them abroad for as much as three years at a time.

COURTS OF LAW (OFFICER WITNESSES).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the ruling by a senior Metropolitan stipendiary magistrate that an Army officer giving evidence in a court of law should not wear a sword; and whether, as the King's Regulations and dress regulations for the Army do not deal specifically with this point, he will amend them in this particular.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Paragraph 977, King's Regulations, requires uniform to be worn by all ranks when on duty. An officer detailed to attend a court of law is on duty, and in such circumstances he is bound to attend in military uniform, of which his sword forms a part. Its removal from the military point of view would be an act of discourtesy. Instructions have recently been issued for the guidance of military authorities in regard to the application of these regulations to the particular case of an officer detailed to attend a court of law.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that a sword is an implement to wound or take life? What use can a sword, therefore, be in a court of law? If an Army officer wishes to attend here in uniform, he can do so, but he must not wear a sword.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is a long time since a sword in this country was used to wound anybody. I think speech more often wounds.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question? An officer who is a Member of this House may attend this House in uniform, but he must not wear a sword.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Serjeant-at-Arms in this House wears a sword.

Mr. MacGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that swords are frequently used in Glasgow by religious factionists?

HOUSEHOLD CAVALRY REGIMENTS (COST).

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War the annual cost of the upkeep of each of the Household Cavalry


regiments; and whether, in view of modem war conditions, consideration will be given to the advisability of disbanding one of these regiments as being superfluous and transferring officers and other ranks to other units?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The approximate annual effective cost of each of the two regiments is £86,000, exclusive of accommodation. Neither of these regiments is superfluous.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT CAMPS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War how many permanent antiaircraft camps are at present in existence which meet the full requirements of the military and Royal Air Force authorities and also provide full facilities for training and firing practice; and are they sufficient to meet the Government's expanding branch of these defences for the purpose of training the additional units at present being raised, or contemplated being raised, in the near future by the Government?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part is five, and to the second part that additional camps will be established to meet expanding requirements.

Mr. Day: Will these camps be capable of expansion if necessary?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is proposed to add to them.

Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to co-operate with Mr. Butlin in the establishment of these camps?

BREN GUNS (CANADIAN PRODUCTION).

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in placing the order with a Canadian company for the production of 5,000 Bren guns, he is satisfied that these guns are being obtained as cheaply as possible?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The order for Bren guns to be made in Canada was placed in association with the Canadian Government for the production of requirements for both Governments, and to provide an alternative source of supply. Having regard to this, the price finally agreed upon is satisfactory.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the prices of these Canadian Bren guns compared with the English prices? Are they higher, lower, or the same?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: They are higher.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect delivery?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I must ask for notice of that question.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has any date been fixed for the delivery of the guns?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, but I cannot say offhand. A date has been fixed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION, FIFE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of teachers in Fife who teach in both day school and night school; the number graduating from Fife each year for the past five years; and the number on the waiting list for employment?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): The number asked for in the first part of the question is 303. As to the second part, the numbers of Fife students who qualified as teachers in each of the five years from 1933–34 to 1937–38, were 88, 81, 67, 64 and 81 respectively. The number on the waiting list for employment is 35.

Mr. Gallacher: Are any special measures being taken in order to get these teachers jobs? Not only in Fife but all over Scotland teachers are finding great difficulty in getting jobs.

Mr. Colville: I find that 33 of the 35 teachers I mentioned have been given work for varying periods as interim teachers. The raising of the school-leaving age may increase the demand for teachers.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average number of scholars attending night schools in Fife during the past five years and the numbers who complete the courses?

Mr. Colville: The average number of scholars attending continuation classes in Fife during the five years ended in 1937 was 9,425. Particulars as to the numbers


of scholars who completed the courses are not immediately available, but I am making inquiry and will communicate the results to the hon. Member.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out that as a result of the hard work they have to do in the day time many of these scholars do not complete the course at the night schools, and will he provide special means to lessen the amount of work they have to do in the day time?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of pupils in Fife schools leaving the schools this year and the average leaving the schools in Fife for the past five years?

Mr. Colville: The number of pupils leaving the schools in Fife this year is estimated to be 4,950. In the five years ended 31st July, 1937, the average annual number was 5,503.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these lads and lassies who come out of school are going to be left without any occupation or simply go into blind-alley occupations, and will any special steps be taken to ensure a future for them?

FLOODING, RIVER KELVIN.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the most recent overflowing of the River Kelvin flooded the public roads in the neighbourhood to such an extent that the water reached the top of the bonnet of a motor-car; and whether he can indicate what is the cause of the prolonged delay in applying the Scottish Land Drainage Act in the Kelvin Valley area?

Mr. Colville: I am aware that places in the valley of the River Kelvin, in common with a number of other parts of Scotland, experienced flooding in consequence of heavy rains which occurred in the latter part of June. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland have, in terms of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, settled a scheme of land drainage for the River Kelvin valley and the statutory procedure in connection therewith is in course of being carried out.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been asking questions

on this matter for the past two years and can he indicate that this Act will be brought into operation before the dissolution of the present Parliament?

Mr. Colville: The measures necessary to carry out the statutory procedure under the Act of 1930, are as the right hon. Gentleman knows, outside the control of the Department, but I can assure him that as soon as possible the proposals will be laid before Parliament.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the heavy drain of permanent disablement benefit cases upon their funds prevent many approved societies from being in a position to provide supplementary benefits to their other members; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing for disablement cases from some central fund after disablement has continued for some fixed number of years?

Mr. Colville: I am aware that claims for disablement benefit have tended to increase in recent years. A comprehensive investigation into the causes of the increase is at present being carried out by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, and pending the completion of that investigation it would be premature for me to consider the adoption of the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Logan: In view of the valuable suggestion contained in the question, is it not possible for a centralised fund to be established and then for these cases to be centralised? Has that been considered?

Mr. Colville: I think I had better wait for the report of the investigation.

Mr. Johnston: How long will that be?

Mr. Colville: I cannot say.

Mr. Buchanan: I take it that any investigation will not in any way interfere with the payment of disablement benefit?

Mr. Colville: No, Sir.

ACCIDENT, EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that certain witnesses who handed their names and addresses to the authorities at


the time of the fatal accident in the amusement park at Glasgow Exhibition were not cited as witnesses for the recent inquiry under the Fatal Accidents Act, and that one of these witnesses would have been a most important witness; why he was not cited; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to have the whole of the circumstances reviewed in the light of such evidence?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I am aware that certain of the persons whose names were given as witnesses of this accident were not cited to attend the inquiry; but, according to the information in my possession, none of those persons could have added anything to the evidence of the eye-witnesses and experts who were called as witnesses. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars regarding the important witness who was omitted, I shall be glad to cause further investigation to be made.

Mr. McGovern: I will send the Lord Advocate the information.

ARRESTS, EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons arrested in the Empire Exhibition grounds since the opening in May and the nature of the offences, respectively; whether he is aware that arrested persons are conveyed to Govan police station, where the officer in charge has no power to grant release on payment of bail; that the arrested persons are conveyed to the central police station during the early hours of the morning after the charge, thereby causing detention for many hours when they were due to be released on bail; that agents and friends are prevented from getting into communication with arrested persons; and whether he will, in conjunction with the authorities, secure the conveyance of prisoners to the central police station immediately they are arrested?

Mr. Colville: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. McGovern: Can the Secretary of State say whether the answer gives any indication that prisoners in future will be taken direct to the Central prison and will be allowed bail at the earlier possible moment?

Mr. Colville: The answer goes fully into the point which the hon. Member raises. Perhaps he will look at it and then, if it is necessary, ask a further question.

Mr. Day: Are these prisoners conducted in prison vans or marched through the streets?

Mr. Colville: In vans.

Following is the answer:

One hundred and thirteen persons have been arrested in the Exhibition. This number includes 77 for being drunk and incapable, 18 for breach of the peace, 9 for theft; 3 for being known thieves loitering with intent, 3 for assault, 2 for indecent exposure, and 1 for fraud. Seventy-one of the persons arrested were taken in the first instance to Govan Police Station, and the remainder to the Central Police Station. The officer in charge at Govan has power to liberate on bail. Four of the persons taken to Govan were so liberated and the remainder, who were at the time unfit for liberation because of drink, were transferred to the Central Police station. The transfers take place between midnight and 2 a.m. Agents are allowed to interview prisoners at any hour at which they apply for permission to do so, while visits from friends are allowed at the discretion of the officer on duty. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed that it would not be practicable to provide a police vehicle to take each person upon his arrest direct to the Central Police Station. In any case no such action appears to be called for.

HOUSING.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will instruct the Second Scottish Housing Company to reduce the house rents at Sandy-hills and Springboig steel-housing schemes, in view of the recent reductions of about £3 per year by the Glasgow Corporation on houses of a like size and type at the adjoining estates of Sandyhills and Carntyne and that previous Secretaries of State have laid it down that the rents must be regulated by the rents of houses of a similar type in the area?

Mr. Colville: In terms of their agreement with the Department of Health for Scotland the company are, as the hon. Member is aware, required to fix their ments by reference to the rents charged


for similar accommodation in the district. I have no doubt that due consideration will be given to the proposed reduction referred to in the question which, I am informed, does not take place until 28th August next.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Secretary of State aware that he is badly informed, as a £2 reduction has already taken place in my own house, and that a further reduction is to take place in August? As these steel houses are not up to the standard of brick houses will the right hon. Gentleman urge substantial reductions with a view to complying with the regulations laid down by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Colville: As I have said, by agreement with the Department this company is bound to take into account the rent of houses in the neighbourhood, and that reductions will be taken into account.

Mr. McGovern: Will the Minister make representations on this point?

Mr. Colville: I have not undertaken to make representations but I can assure the hon. Member that the company will be made aware of these reductions.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the attention of local authorities in Scotland has been drawn to the need for special provisions in the rehousing of families which include one or more tuberculous members; and whether he is aware that at the present time many patients whose condition has been substantially improved in sanatoria rapidly lose all the ground they have gained when they return to houses which should be subjected to slum clearance?

Mr. Colville: I am aware that bad housing conditions may sometimes be responsible for a deterioration in the health of persons discharged from sanatoria and the Department of Health have advised local authorities in connexion with their rehousing operations to take account of the presence of tuberculous persons in particular households in view of the desirability of such persons having a room to themselves.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that other members of the family are liable to infection when these people return from a sanatorium?

Mr. Buchanan: Will the Secretary of State circularise local authorities again on this matter in view of its importance?

Mr. Colville: Fairly recently this matter was brought to their notice, but I will look into it again.

DIPHTHERIA (IMMUNISATION, CHILDREN).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance is given by his Department towards giving injections to school children to immunise them against diphtheria; and whether, in view of the danger of epidemics of this disease, progress in this matter can be accelerated?

Mr. Colville: The Department of Health have stressed in their annual reports the value of immunisation of children against diphtheria. A number of local authorities, with the encouragement of the Department, have proceeded with the formulation of schemes for securing such immunisation, and the Department's Medical Officers have co-operated with medical officers of health to that end.

Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly note that these injections are both dangerous and unreliable?

Mr. Colville: That is a matter of opinion.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of old age pensioners receiving relief in money or kind from Glasgow public assistance committee for the years ending May, 1936, 1937 and 1938, respectively?

Mr. Colville: The number of old age pensioners receiving relief in Glasgow at 15th May, 1936, was 13,428; at 15th May, 1937, 14,054; and at 15th May, 1938, 15,246.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the continual increase year by year in the number of aged people who have to go to the local authority for assistance, will the Minister convene a conference of local authorities to discuss this question, which places such a terrible burden upon them?

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member's first question was one of fact, which I have


answered. He is now raising a different question, which I am not in a position to answer.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider increasing the old age pension?

SIZE OF SCHOOL CLASSES, GLASGOW.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of classes in Glasgow schools with 50 or more pupils for the years ending March, 1937, and 1938, respectively?

Mr. Colville: In April, 1937, there were in Glasgow 267 classes with 50 pupils, and 114 with over 50 pupils, on the roll. The corresponding figures for April, 1938, were 165 and 42.

Mr. Davidson: In view of this high figure will the Secretary of State take note of the recent statement of the Educational Institute of Scotland, that no teacher or professor, however capable and efficient, can educate people in these circumstances?

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member will notice the considerable decrease last year.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider in the near future assisting the Secretary of State for Scotland by the appointment of an additional Under-Secretary of State?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The question of appointing an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is, as the hon. Member is aware, referred to in the course of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Scottish Administration, though they made no specific recommendation on the matter. This report is now receiving consideration, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that this report has been under consideration for a considerable time and that Scottish business, very evidently, is not being adequately dealt with as things are just now, will the Prime Minister at least hasten on this particular appointment apart from waiting for the full consideration of the report?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it can be considered apart from the other questions raised in the report.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Can the Prime Minister say when he will be able to inform the House of the result of the Government's consideration of this report, and whether a statement will be made before the House rises at the end of the month?

The Prime Minister: I could not say that without notice.

Mr. Mander: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there are already upwards of 100 Members in this House dependent on the Government, and that we do not want any additions to the number?

COAL INDUSTRY (CAGE WORKING).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary for Mines what reports he has received from His Majesty's inspectors regarding the instructions sent them to the effect that young and inexperienced boys should not be given duties in connection with the working of cages; and whether he proposes to take any further action?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): No cases of the kind have been reported to me since the instructions were issued.

Mr. Day: Have colliery managers been circularised on this matter?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, there has been no occasion to circularise them.

NEWFOUNDLAND (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that thousands of children in Newfoundland are unable to attend school because they are without shoes and clothing fit to go in, and are also badly in need of food; and what is proposed to remedy this state of affairs?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Lord Stanley): I have been in communication with the Governor with regard to the suggestion in the hon. Member's question, and I am glad to have the opportunity of informing the House of the facts. The Governor informs me


that there is no question of 40,000 children failing to attend school in Newfoundland as has been stated in recent Press reports. According to the 1935 Census returns some 14,000 children of school age (six to 14) did not attend school in that year, but since then the numbers of children enrolled on the school registers have been substantially increased as a result of an energetic campaign on the part of the supervisors and teachers. In the cases of children not attending school the main factors contributing to nonattendance have been found to be the withdrawal of children at an early age, the distance to the nearest school, and in certain instances deficiency of school accommodation. The Governor also reports that only in a few cases has nonattendance been attributable to lack of shoes or clothing, and that prompt steps are always taken, whenever such cases are brought to notice, to supply the needs of the children affected. He adds that the Commission of Government have no evidence of children being prevented from attending school because of conditions of lack of nourishment.

Mr. Lunn: Am I to understand from the answer that the Press reports are absolutely unfounded and that everything in the island is lovely?

Lord Stanley: I think my answer shows that the Press reports are grossly exaggerated.

Sir Louis Smith: As the condition of a large portion of the population of Newfoundland is due to the depression in the fishing industry, will the Noble Lord consider sending someone from this country with an expert knowledge of the industry?

SPAIN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of Dominion citizens who have been killed and wounded by General Franco's forces while serving on British and Dominion merchant vessels?

Lord Stanley: I am not aware of any case of a Dominion citizen being killed or wounded in circumstances such as the hon. Member mentions.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether consultations have taken

place, or are contemplated, with the Spanish Government on the subject of the proposals of General Franco with regard to the establishment of a special port for shipping at Almeria or elsewhere?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether General Franco's proposals concerning Almeria have been communicated to the Spanish Government?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The proposals concerning Almeria form part of the larger question on which the Prime Minister will make a statement as soon as he is in a position to do so.

Mr. Mander: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the question as to whether any consultations have taken place with the Spanish Government who are so closely concerned in this matter? That is the question.

Mr. Butler: No consultations have yet taken place with the Spanish Government on this subject.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the hon. Gentleman observed that the port of Almeria is so unimportant that it is not one of those into which it is proposed to put observers?

Mr. Butler: I had observed that.

BECHUANALAND (MASARWA TRIBE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps have been taken in Bechuanaland since the Tagart Report to abolish the slavery of the Masarwa people; and whether there is evidence either that the number of slaves has been reduced or that the conditions of absolute dependence on the Bamangwato and other tribes have been modified?

Lord Stanley: Substantial progress has been made in the measures for carrying out the recommendations made by Mr. Tagart in his report. The position is set out in detail in a report by the officer who was allocated for special duty with the Masarwa which is reproduced in the last report of the League of Nations Advisory Committee of Experts on Slavery. It is there explained that the acting chief of the Bamangwato tribe has agreed to implement the policy of


incorporating the Masarwa as ordinary tribesmen in the body politic of the Bamangwato enjoying the traditional rights and subject to the traditional obligations of tribesmen, and that is is now realised by the Bamangwato and by the Masarwa that compulsory service is a thing of the past.

Mr. Lunn: Is it not a fact that in 1933 we celebrated the centenary of the abolition of slavery?

Lord Stanley: In commenting on the report which I mentioned, the League of Nations Advisory Committee have stated that it seems possible to say that the status of the Masarwa is not one of slavery.

SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in reference to the possible transference of areas in South Africa to the Union of South Africa, he has made, or will make, direct inquiries of the native chiefs in the areas concerned with a view to ascertaining their own and the native opinion on the matter?

Lord Stanley: The position in regard to this matter remains as stated in my answer to the hon. Member's question on 14th June. When the memoranda by the Union Government are ready for issue it is contemplated that translations in the native languages should be made available in the territories. This will enable the chiefs and their people to judge what the position would be in the event of transfer.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that imply that steps will be taken to ascertain the opinion of the chiefs, and further, is the Noble Lord aware that many of these chiefs have expressed considerable dubiety concerning the possible transfer of these areas?

Lord Stanley: All that the chiefs will be asked to do is to consider documents and study the terms which the Union Government have in mind. There is at this juncture no question of formal consultation with the chiefs about transfer.

BRITISH COLUMBIA (FAIRBRIDGE FARM SCHOOL SOCIETY).

Mr. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the gift of a farm in British Columbia to the Fair-bridge Farm School Society; and whether he will co-operate with the Association in the migration of boys to this new school?

Lord Stanley: I was glad to learn of this generous gift to the Fairbridge Society. I understand that the Society propose to use the estate in question for the purpose of giving practical mainland farming experience to the older boys from the Prince of Wales Fairbridge Farm School, situated on Vancouver Island, before they go to employment in the Province. There is thus no question of establishing a new farm school with the gift. The Government's financial cooperation and assistance in respect of the Vancouver School will, of course, continue as before.

Mr. Duncan: Will there be room for more boys from this country as a result of this very generous gift?

Lord Stanley: I do not think I can answer that question without notice. I rather think it is a question of the extension of training rather than of taking more boys.

Mr. T. Smith: Is it not a fact that in Canada there are more than enough boys to fill the Fairbridge Farm School, and many more?

Mr. Robert Gibson: Will the Minister keep in mind that in Scotland more than 1,000,000 acres are available for reclaiming as farm land?

EIRE (MIGRANTS TO GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the question of Irish immigration into Great Britain will be published?

Lord Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) on 3rd December last, of which I am sending him a copy. This contains the information obtained by the Inter-Departmental Committee which inquired into the question.

Sir T. Moore: Can my Noble Friend say whether the report will deal with the obvious advantages hitherto to Great Britain through the immigration of Irishmen into this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

SHETLAND ISLES.

Mr. Leslie: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether, in view of the success achieved in the planting of trees in wind-swept peat land, the 'Commissioners will consider trying a similar experiment in the Shetland Isles?

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners are not prepared to undertake an experiment in the planting of trees in the Shetland Isles as they are convinced there would be no prospect of success.

Mr. Leslie: Is it not the case that the planting of trees has been successful in the Western Isles, and therefore, why should it not be done in the Shetland Isles? Why have the Commissioners come to this conclusion? Have they made any experiment, or taken expert advice?


Constituency.
Area acquired by Forestry Commission.
Area planted to date.
Area remaining to plant.
Number of Forest Workers' Holdings.





Acres.
Acres.
Acres.



South-West Norfolk
…
…
30,000
25,600
2,700
102


South Norfolk
…
…
8,400
3,400
2,900
36


Bury St. Edmunds
…
…
14,400
6,100
5,600
51

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

GOODS VEHICLES (OVERLOADING).

Mr. Remer: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the case tried recently before the Macclesfield borough magistrates where a lorry owner has paid duty applying to a 2½-ton lorry which actually weighed 2 tons 16 cwts.; that all chassis manufacturers are trying to keep their lorries, unladen weight, under 2½ tons; that the change of tyres even involves an alteration of this weight; that the whole objective is to keep the weight down to enable the vehicle to travel at 3o miles

Sir G. Courthope: We were advised by experts, and we came to this conclusion without any hesitation.

Major Neven-Spence: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware that a part of the Kergord Estate, in Weisdale, Shetland, was planted with trees some years ago; and whether he will undertake to have the present state of this plantation reported upon by an expert?

Sir G. Courthope: The Forestry Commissioners are aware that a small plantation was made in Weisdale, Shetland, some years ago and they will arrange to have it inspected.

STATISTICS (NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK).

Mr. Parker: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the area owned by the Commission, the land already planted and plantable, and the number of forest workers' holdings in the constituencies of South-West Norfolk, South Norfolk and Bury St. Edmunds, respectively?

Sir G. Courthope: The answer contains a table of figures. The hon. Member will, therefore, perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

an hour; and that, consequently, a very large number of dangerous vehicles are travelling on the road; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to deal with the situation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): My attention had not been called to this particular case. My hon. Friend will, however, be glad to know that regulations are now being drafted to implement recommendations recently made by the Transport Advisory Council with regard to the overloading of goods vehicles.

FERRY, JARROW.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received any reply to his communication about the Jarrow Ferry; and whether he is now in a position to deal with the increasing difficulties of the situation at this crossing?

Captain Hudson: My right hon. Friend has not yet received a reply to his last letter to the county councils, and I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to add to his statement of 31st May.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the fact that the statement on 31st May foreshadowed that there must be unanimity among the Tyneside authorities, and that that will mean a great deal of delay, however quickly they reply, and in view of the fact that the ferry will close down at the end of the year, is something going to be done before the ferry is closed?

Captain Hudson: We are hoping that the county councils will reply to our letter.

Miss Wilkinson: Has not the hon. and gallant Gentleman been making that reply for months and months? He knows what the facts are and he knows that the ferry is to be closed—is he going to do something?

MOTOR ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been directed to the fact that third-party claims against motorists are becoming much more costly; and will he investigate the matter with the object of regulating the amount of compensation payable?

Captain Hudson: I am aware of the tendency to which my hon. Friend refers. The question, however, of any amendment of the law designed to limit compensation for accidents raises wide issues which would extend beyond the scope of my Department.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman trying to arrange for something to be done to limit the number of accidents?

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that gas masks are being

offered for sale at l0s. each; and whether these gas masks have been approved by the Home Office; and whether it is part of the policy of the Government to encourage people to buy their own gas masks?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am aware that respirators are being offered for sale: but no such respirator has been approved by the Home Office unless it bears the Home Office certification mark. The object of the mark system is to meet any special demand at home or overseas; it is the Government's policy to supply respirators for the whole of the civilian population free of charge.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman think it well that there should be this gross exploitation of the fears of the people, seeing that there are already millions of official gas masks available?

Mr. Lloyd: The more it is known that these gas masks are being kept available by the Government, the better.

Mr. Sorensen: In that case, is it desirable to allow commercial exploitation of gas masks?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has no power to alter that.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the danger of uncontrolled sale, will the Minister consider the prohibition of the sale of gas masks without Government approval?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Miss Wilkinson: Is the Minister's refusal due to the fact that people in more comfortable circumstances hope to get better quality gas masks at a higher price?

Mr. Duncan: asked the Home Secretary whether he will make a statement regarding the visit of the Under-Secretary of State to certain London boroughs to inspect the progress of air-raid precautions schemes; and whether he is satisfied with that progress?

Mr. Lloyd: I visited Islington, BethnaI Green, Stepney, Wandsworth and Westminster and saw various aspects of the air-raid precautions activities in each borough. The results achieved in the London boroughs vary. No one would seek to disguise the fact that there is still a great deal to the done, but steady progress is being made, and I am confident


that all concerned are anxious to see that progress accelerated.

Mr. Duncan: If it is true, as was stated in the "Times" last week, that London is behind the provinces, will my hon. Friend do everything he can to co-operate with the London boroughs to see that London is brought up to standard?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the London local authorities do wish to make progress now as quickly as possible.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Has it not always been true that what Manchester thinks to-day, London thinks tomorrow?

Sir Arthur Salter: In view of the special difficulty and danger in the case of London, does not my hon. Friend think it really essential to have more centralisation in authority and in initiative for the whole London area?

Mr. Duncan: asked the Home Secretary how many and which London boroughs have now gas-mask stores in working order; and whether he will urge all those that have not, the necessity of providing them, in view of the large number of gas-masks now available for distribution to such stores?

Mr. Lloyd: In a circular addressed to local authorities last week, my right hon. Friend expressed the hope that arrangements for the local storage of respirators would be so expedited as to enable supplies for all the larger centres of population to be accepted before the end of August. Two boroughs in London already have a fully stocked store and in a number of other boroughs steps are being taken which should enable delivery of respirators to be accepted within the period mentioned in the circular.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (COMMITTEE).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Home Secretary how often the Committee investigating the question of competition between the taximeter-cab industry and the private motor-hire firms will meet; and whether arrangements can be made for a separate report regarding the London area to be made available before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Lloyd: It is for the Committee to decide when and how often they shall meet, and I understand that arrangements for the first few meetings have already been made. As my right hon. Friend stated in his reply to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) on 4th July, the Committee have been specifically asked to deal first with the position in London and to consider whether it is practicable to make any recommendation as regards London in advance of their other recommendations. My right hon. Friend must leave it to the Committee to decide whether and when such an interim report can be furnished.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the Minister say whether any meetings have in fact taken place?

Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now decided to refer to the King's Roll National Council the suggestion as to the further employment of ex-service men; and what the Council intend to do in the matter?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend's suggestion will come before the Council at its next meeting.

BENEFIT AND ASSISTANCE (HOLIDAY PAYMENTS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the position in Greenock arising out of the holiday pay credit deductions from unemployment benefit payments and Unemployment Assistance Board allowances, as set out in the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Greenock?

Mr. E. Brown: Claims for unemployment benefit made at Greenock during the recent holiday period were determined by the statutory authorities in accordance with the leading decisions of the Umpire and, in particular, Decision No. 2569/38, a copy of which I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 7th July, 1938. As regards unemployment


assistance I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to him on 30th June last.

HOME PRODUCTION OF FEEDING STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for the consideration of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham in connection with the home production of feeding stuffs?

[That, in view of the vulnerable position occupied during war by agriculture in respect of the importation of feeding stuffs, this House urges on the Government the need for developing at home supplies of suitable commodities by permitting the cultivation of additional acreage of potatoes which are not suitable for human consumption but which can be feed to pigs, by using surplus fish for the production of fish-meal for poultry feeding, and by establishing national factories for the supply of these two feeding stuffs to the rearers of pigs and poultry.]

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on 4th May last.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the fact that no time has been found in which to debate this Motion, will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House that the land will no longer be forgotten and that never again shall the countryside be neglected?

Mr. George Griffiths: Did not the Prime Minister answer the hon. Member at Kettering the other day?

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BORROWING).

Mr. Lambert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Treasury exercises control over proposed borrowings by local authorities?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): Subject to minor exceptions, local authorities cannot borrow money except with the express approval of Parliament or of a Minister or Government Department acting under statutory powers. In no such case is the Treasury

itself the sanctioning authority although it has certain special functions, as under Standing Orders 207 and 208, in relation to London County Council Money Bills. When a local authority has received authority for a scheme it may borrow itself from the public or if it is eligible to borrow from the Local Loans Fund and wishes to do so it may apply to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The Treasury has certain duties in connection with the Local Loans Fund including the duty of submitting to Parliament periodically Public Works Loan Bills which settle the total amounts that the fund may lend.

Mr. Lambert: In view of the very great increase in borrowing by local authorities, would it not be wise if these regulations were tightened up?

Sir J. Simon: My right hon. Friend will recall that the Select Committee on Estimates in 1932 went into this question of the control exercised by Government Departments over borrowing by local authorities and they came to the conclusion that central control was not needed. It is not really borrowing by local authorities which is the main element in the annual capital issues in this country.

Mr. Watkins: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no evidence that local authorities abuse their present powers in this matter?

Mr. Leach: Is not the money spent by local authorities the best-spent money of all?

TAX OFFICES (STAFF, OVERTIME PAY).

Mr. Messer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether authority has yet been given to the Inland Revenue Department to pay arrears of overtime pay due to the staff in the office of collectors of taxes under the award of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal; and whether, in view of the award being dated 12th May, 1938, he will state the reason for the delay in the issue of Treasury authority for the payment?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir. The delay was due to the fact that difficulties arose with regard to the application of the award to certain classes of officers.

ANGLO-TURKISH (ARMAMENTS CREDIT) AGREEMENT BILL.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what types of armaments are to be exported from this country under the provisions of the Anglo-Turkish (Armaments Credit) Agreement Bill?

Sir J. Simon: The agreement applies only to such contracts as are concluded with the prior approval of His Majesty's Government and up to the present no contracts have been submitted by the Turkish Government for such approval. I understand, however, that the contracts which the Turkish Government have in mind are mainly for their naval requirements.

Mr. Bellenger: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that latter piece of information, may I ask him to give me, in a little more detail, of what these naval armaments consist? Are they guns or ships?

Sir J. Simon: I could not answer that question. I do not think anybody could answer it. I do not think that the proposals have yet been put forward in detail, but the condition that no agreement can be made except with the authority of His Majesty's Government is, of course, a very effective security that it will not be to the prejudice or disadvantage of our own rearmament programme.

Mr. Bellenger: While not disagreeing with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, may I ask him to indicate to the House whether it will be possible, and how it will be possible, to find out how the taxpayers' money is being spent on these armaments that are being financed?

Mr. Thurtle: Is not this information precisely the kind of information which potential enemies would like to get?

Mr. E. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and those associated with him bore no ill-will to the Turkish Government when the issue was raised last week in Debate?

BRITISH AIRWAYS, LIMITED.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the changes in

British Airways, Limited, contemplated have yet been carried out?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Negotiations are now proceeding with the company for the establishment of certain European services. It has not yet been found practicable to implement the recommendations in regard to the internal organisation of the company, but I can assure the hon. Member that they are not being lost sight of.

Mr. Mender: Has not a new chairman or director recently been appointed?

Sir K. Wood: Not a chairman.

ACCIDENT, ROYAL ALBERT DOCK.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he has seen the recommendation of the jury, at an inquest held on a man who was killed in the Royal Albert Dock on Tuesday last, that the Board of Trade should revise the signals between the hatchways and winchmen; and whether he intends to take any action in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: The regulations under the Factories Act for loading and unloading ships do not prescribe particular codes of signals, and I understand that methods of signalling vary according to circumstances; but the matter will be considered further.

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the jury recommended that the attention of the President of the Board of Trade should be drawn to the necessity for regulating the system of signals between the winchmen and the other men engaged on work of this kind?

Mr. Lloyd: I did not see that, but the matter will be considered further.

CHINA (ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister what action His Majesty's Government have taken, or propose to take, to assist the Chinese Government to stabilise its currency; and what specific service the Government are rendering towards the economic assistance of China?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14th June to


my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

GRAND MUFTI.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to initiate conversations with the French Government concerning the continued residence of the Mufti in Beirut?

Mr. Butler: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on 29th June, close contact has been and is being maintained with the French Government.

SITUATION.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a statement to make regarding recent disorder and murder in Palestine and the recent steps taken to deal with the situation?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I regret to state that there were yesterday further serious acts of violence in a number of centres in Palestine, details of which have appeared in the Press. His Majesty's Ship "Repulse" is remaining at Haifa, and 20 officers and 254 men have been landed from her to assist in the work of maintaining order. The 1st Battalion Irish Guards arrived in Palestine yesterday, and the 1st Battalion Essex Regiment are due there to-day. The First Squadron 11th Hussars, an armoured car regiment, are arriving in Palestine tomorrow and the other two squadrons on the following day. As I said in answer to questions yesterday, I am in communication with the High Commissioner regarding the recruitment of additional police.

Mr. Logan: Is there any row in Palestine in regard to these Irish immigrants, the Irish Guards?

Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this is traceable to the activities of Mussolini and Hitler, and whether the reports in the Press that a large number of revolvers and wire-cutting implements have been found with German marks on them are true?

Mr. MacDonald: With regard to the first part of the question, I have no evidence that leads to that conclusion. With regard to the second part, I have no information.

CALDERSTONES MENTAL HOSPITAL (THOMAS FISHER).

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Health why Thomas Fisher, of 10, Hutton Street, after being out of Calder-stones institution five years, was recalled; and is he aware that the doctor said he could be considered for release if he had a permanent job?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I am informed that the authorities at Calder-stones recalled the patient because questions had arisen as to the suitability of the occupation and the adequacy of the supervision available at his home. The Board of Control, however, on 21st June last asked the committee to reconsider the matter and to furnish their observations on the suitability of Mr. Fisher for discharge. As a result, it has been decided to discharge the patient.

Mr. Logan: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it time that investigation was made into these cases, as it is only when information is brought to this House that these cases ought to be discharged and that this kind of irregularity ought not to exist at all, that action is taken; and must it not be understood among the ordinary rank and file of unemployed people that Bedlam is natural for them to occupy their time in? Will he inquire into these conditions?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend appreciates the hon. Member's anxiety that these patients on licence should not be recalled unnecessarily. The Board of Control have in fact issued a circular, and my right hon. Friend is in communication with the authorities concerned.

Mr. Logan: Will the hon. Gentleman investigate in regard to this institution and examine the officials, to see whether they are all right?

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Health whether instead of charging costs


of references to regional medical officers and regional dental officers to the administration account of an approved approved society, he will allow such expenses to be charged to the benefit fund account?

Mr. Bernays: The cost of references by an approved society to regional medical and dental officers is an expense of administration, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 102 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, is properly chargeable to the administration account.

Mr. Logan: In view of the importance of this question, is it not possible to change this account, which really deals with the health of the people, to the benefit fund account, so as to enable the administration account to have its proper quota and the benefit fund account to give additional benefits to the members?

Mr. Bernays: Under the Statute the administration expenses have to go down to the administration account, and I should imagine that the remedy would be to apply for a larger amount for the administration account, but I cannot assure the hon. Member that if they make that application it will be granted.

HOUSING (COUNTY DURHAM).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built in rural and urban areas in the county of Durham since 1932 and the estimated number necessary to be built to meet the requirements of the county?

Mr. Bernays: From 1st April, 1933, to 31st March, 1938, the number of houses completed by or on behalf of local authorities and by private enterprise in the county of Durham was 21,172 and 27,295, respectively. I regret that the information available does not enable me to give with any degree of accuracy the estimate referred to in the last part of the question.

Mr. Stewart: Can the hon. Member say that he is satisfied with the progress that is being made in those areas in regard to the housing of the people?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir. The Durham authorities have been extremely active and have done very well.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the hon. Member say how many of these houses are timber houses?

ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Italian authorities have recently been recruiting natives in Aden and British Somaliland for military service in Ethiopia; whether such recruiting has been carried on with the knowledge and approval of the British authorities; and whether he will take steps to prevent such recruiting?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am not aware that the position is as stated by the hon. Member, and such recruitment is not permitted by the authorities in either British Somaliland or Aden.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information contained in this question has been received from a reliable authority, and will he make inquiries into the matters contained in the question?

Mr. MacDonald: I have no such information, and I am not aware that it has come from any reliable authority. If the hon. Member has any such information, I should be grateful if he would let me have it, so that I can examine it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister: We propose to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to obtain the first eight Orders on the Paper.

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. I notice that the Prime Minister has put down a Motion which includes the Divorce and Nullity of Marriage (Scotland) Bill [Lords]. May I ask whether this Bill has been taken over by the Government? While it is true that the Standing Order dealing with this matter says in effect that they can move for any "specified business," I think, if you


read the Standing Order, it will convey the idea of "specified business" being Government business and, therefore, that it is a straining of the Standing Order that the Government are now moving such a Motion for the first time. I would like the Prime Minister or you, Mr. Speaker, to inform me whether this has ever been clone before, that the Government, before announcing the taking-over of a Bill, have moved the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule in regard to it, and might I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this is a precedent that is now being established? In my time I cannot recollect the Government ever moving the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule for non-Government business.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot without notice give the hon. Member any previous instance of a similar kind, but I know that it has been the practice in the past. Of course, "specified business" does not necessarily mean Government business.

Mr. Buchanan: But the Standing Order says that the Government shall give notice for "specified business."

Mr. Speaker: That is what they have done.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, that may be true, but on the reading of the Standing Order my feeling is that "specified business" means Government business, and I submit that it is straining the Standing Order for the Government, without any notice, suddenly to take over a Private Bill and move, by a Motion which is not discussible, the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule for non-Government business.

Mr. Stephen: On previous occasions have not the Government always intimated that they were taking over responsibility for a Measure before putting this Motion on the Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot give that information without notice.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not a fact that as this Motion is placed on the Paper, the House can vote on it in two parts, first on the Government business, and secondly on the Divorce Bill?

Sir T. Moore: Did not the Prime Minister indicate yesterday that he would

follow the course that he is proposing to follow to-day?

Mr. Maclean: May I have a reply to my question?

Mr. Speaker: I do not see how we can divide this Motion into two separate Motions, because it does not relate to two Standing Orders.

Mr. Maclean: It has been the practice during the last ten years at least, if not the last 20 years, where instances of this kind have occurred, for two votes to be taken, one upon Government business and the other upon the business which the Government have not taken over.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that this particular Motion has been divided into two. That is done only when the Motion deals with two different Standing Orders.

Mr. Maclean: Are we to take it that the Government are asking for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule on particular business for which they are not taking responsibility?

Mr. Speaker: It is on specified business according to the Standing Order.

Mr. Maclean: They are not taking responsibility for that specified business. This is a Private Member's Bill.

Mr. Stephen: In view of the fact that we can get no specific information as to whether this has ever been done before without the Government taking the responsibility for the Measure mentioned in the Motion, will not the Prime Minister withdraw this Motion to-day?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not imply that I said it had never been done before. It has been done before. I only said that I could not give the specific occasion without notice.

Mr. Stephen: The point I was asking was whether it had ever been done before without the Government taking responsibility for the Measure mentioned in the Motion.

Mr. Speaker: I have said that it has been done before, but I cannot give the occasion without notice.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business and on the Divorce and Nullity of Marriage (Scotland) Bill [Lords] be exempted,


at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." —[The Prime Minister.]

Division No. 294.]
AYES.
[3.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Duekworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Maitland, A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Albery, Sir lrving
Duggan, H. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Marsden, Commander A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Eastwood, J. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Apsley, Lord
Ellis, Sir G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Assheton, R.
Elmley, Viscount
Morgan, R. H.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Emery, J. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Findlay, Sir E.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Fleming, E. L.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Peake, O.


Beauohamp, Sir B. C.
Furness, S. N.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Petherick, M.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Gitmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Gledhill, G.
Pilkington, R.


Bernays, R. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Procter, Major H. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Granville, E. L.
Radford, E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Boyee, H. Leslie
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Brass, Sir W.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hambro A. V.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hannah, I. C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Harbord, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bull, B. B.
Harvey, Sir G.
Remer, J. R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Butcher, H. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rowlands, G.


Butler, R. A
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hepworth, J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cartland, J. R. H.
Higgs, W. F.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cary, R. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hopkinson, A.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Channon, H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Scott, Lord William


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Selley, H. R.


Christie, J. A.
Hunloke, H. P.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Keeling, E. H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kimball, L.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Leech, Sir J. W.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spens, W. P.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lipson, D. L.
Storey, S.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lloyd, G. W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J


De Chair, S. S.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


De la Bère, R.
Loftus. P. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Denville, Alfred
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Doland, G. F.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
McKie, J. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Drewe, C.
Maonamara, Major J. R. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Macquisten, F. A.
Turton, R. H.

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 128.

Wakefield, W. W.
Wayland, Sir W. A.
Wise, A. R.


Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Wells, Sir Sydney
Withers, Sir J. J.


Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsiey


Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Wragg, H.


Warrender, Sir V.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)



Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Munro and Major Herbert.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bellenger F. J.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Benson, G.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sanders, W. S.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silkin, L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
John, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Collindridge, F.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lee, F.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGovern, J.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R.T. H.
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Frankel, D.
Marklew, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
White, H. Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F,
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenook)
Moreing, A. C.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.



Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Poole, C. C.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Herring Industry Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

West Thurrock Estate Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1938 (REVISED ESTIMATE).

Revised Estimate presented, of the sums required in the year ending 31st March, 1939, for Eire Services and Irish Land Purchase Services [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 159.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

As amended, further considered.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Deduction for purposes of National Defence Contribution and Income Tax of expenditure for protection of employees of factories, etc., against air-raids.)
A sum amounting to one-fifth of any expenditure other than expenditure properly chargeable against revenue for the year in which such expenditure is incurred approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and actually incurred in providing protection for the employees of factories, works and industrial premises again air raids, may, notwithstanding anything in the Income Tax Acts, be deducted in computing the amount of the profits or gains assessable to national defence contribution or to income tax in the year in which such expenditure was incurred, and a fifth in each of the following four years:
Provided always that if at any time a shelter provided for such protection shall be substantially used for a purpose other than for protection from air raids, the allowance provided for such shelter by this section shall cease to be granted in that year and the following years.—[Mr. Craven-Ellis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause, which is on the Order Paper in the names of myself and a number of my colleagues, relates to expenditure on the part of industrialists for the purpose of giving their employés protection against possible air raids. At the moment they are in the position that if they comply with the wish of the Home Office that they should provide protection, there is nothing in the Income Tax law which will allow that expenditure to be deducted in arriving at the profits of the year. Under the law as it is at present it is treated as capital expenditure. It is suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give favourable consideration to the request for this allowance and for it being spread over five years. It is a new departure to ask private enterprise to provide protection of this kind. Industrialists have shown their willingness to meet the wishes of the Home Office but, quite rightly, they say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought in return to give them some consideration,

and I do not think that is unreasonable. Who are the people who will have to stand the cost of such work as providing trenches, strengthening buildings or providing shelters? It is the ordinary shareholders, who have already suffered the imposition of N.D.C. The House has always shown itself to be fair, even to private enterprise, when it is willing to take part in what is nothing more or less than a public service.
It has also to be remembered that in this connection different industries find themselves in different circumstances. Some are located in densely built-up areas, where the strengthening of a building may be an extremely costly process; and the matter does not end there, because the loss of productive space must also be taken into account, and that will persist for longer than the five-year period for which I am asking this relief. In order that the House may have some knowledge of what the provision of shelters and general protection means I have drawn up a schedule of 77 firms, all of which have prepared protection schemes, with an estimate of the cost to them, and I will quote a few cases. Number one, a marine engineering and shipbuilding firm, employs 4,000 people and proposes to provide shelters and trenches at an estimated cost of £12,500, which is £3.125 per employé. The second, a rubber firm, employs 3,700 workpeople, and the cost there is £3·5 per employé. An electrical power generating station is in a very different position from the industries which I have just named, because there it will cost £60,000 to provide protection for the 3,000 employés, which is equivalent to £20 per employé. I have in this schedule firms employing very large numbers of workpeople. One tobacco firm employ 22,500 and it will cost them £70,000. I hope, therefore, that the House will not turn a deaf ear to this appeal, because it is reasonable that some consideration should be shown to those employers who are willing and ready to act in co-operation with the Home Office in this matter of aerial defence; and I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who throughout the proceedings on this Bill has shown himself to be extremely reasonable and fair, will give some consideration to this new Clause.

4.0 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Motion.
The Government through the Home Secretary have laid it down that it is the duty of owners of businesses to provide protection against air raids for their employés. In doing so they have insisted upon what is really a very far-reaching proposition. I think that the Home Secretary in issuing directions to employers in that way should very carefully consider, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will very carefully consider, the effect upon the great variety of businesses concerned. In this new Clause we are dealing solely with the question of capital expenditure. The Chancellor has already made a certain concession with regard to Schedule A Income Tax and rating assessments, but I suggest that although that has its value it is a purely negative value. The Home Secretary also indicated that in respect of air-raid precaution works generous maintenance allowances would be given, but of course that again is quite indefinite. I feel that expenditure upon structural works for the purpose of protection against attack from the air certainly creates no asset, at least nothing which could be called an asset in any business sense of the word, for the reason that it is quite impossible to expect that any such works would ever produce any revenue.
I think we ought to consider how such works are to be financed from the point of view of the business. If the cost of, say, shelters, is to be found out of capital, certainly that amount ought to be written off as a loss as soon as it is incurred, and certainly no prudent business man would suggest that he could reasonably borrow the amount to meet the cost of such works. If on the other hand it has to be found out of the income of the business year by year, then certainly it must involve a reduction of the dividend paid to the ordinary shareholder. The senior Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) pointed out that this will be a charge really upon the ordinary shareholder, who already exclusively has to bear the charge of National Defence Contribution. If it is suggested, as I rather think the Home Secretary suggested in a Debate on the subject, that it is a moral duty upon employers to provide this protection for their employés, surely it is a burden which ought to be borne by all the proprietors of the business and not exclusively by the ordinary shareholders. If on the other hand it is suggested that

it is a business risk against which people ought to make provision in the ordinary course of business, I think it ought to be borne in mind that in the event of war, which is the only event in which these precautions will come into play and be of any advantage to the business, there is a very strong probability that the business will come under Government control, and if that business is not sufficiently important from the point of view of our national activity at that time to come under Government control, it is very likely that it will be shut down altogether, or at least very drastically curtailed in its enterprise.
We are not asking for any direct Government contribution; at least we are not asking for it in this new Clause. All we are asking for is that businesses should not be taxed upon the profits which they cannot truly be said to earn in the particular year, for this reason, that any prudent business man would regard the cost of air-raid precaution works as a charge against his profits. If he does so, I suggest that it is only fair that the Government should also recognise that fact and allow him to make an appropriate deduction in respect of his Income Tax and National Defence Contribution. In the new Clause it is suggested that these deductions should be spread over a five years' period, which would make it more favourable, I suggest, from the point of view of the revenue. I hope very much that the Chancellor will consider very carefully the position in which the business man finds himself when he is really trying to carry out the invitation of the Home Secretary to provide proper protection for his employés against air raids.

4.7 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I wish to support the new Clause. Nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the serious burden imposed on large works in this country in making anything approaching adequate provision for the safety of their workpeople in the event of the disaster of war. The substance of this new Clause is that an allowance of one-fifth should be made, extending over five years, in order to compensate the business for the risk undertaken, the expenditure involved and the deduction which has to be made from the profits of the concern in order to make this necessary provision. Surely if that


is the effect of what is now a part of our national policy—the taking of precautions to safeguard the lives of our workpeople and the properties out of which they make their livelihood—the Government must take into consideration how far by any direct subsidy or financial contribution they can meet the responsibility in the direction suggested in this Clause.
Those of us who are engaged in large industrial enterprises are certainly willing to do our best to meet the exigencies of the times and to conform with the moral obligations which rest upon us in meeting the great question of looking after our people and their safety; but surely we have a right to ask that in doing that we ought to have some consideration from the Government in the matter. Take some of the larger concerns engaged in production on a large scale, and in some cases showing considerable activity in the preparation of armaments. Is the whole responsibility for the capital outlay in making adequate provisions for the safety of the workpeople to devolve entirely on the company? It is very unfair that the Chancellor should expect that the entire burden should be borne so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) has said, in any carefully managed business the first charge upon profits expended in the provision of these safeguards would be regarded as a loss. As any well-managed company must from year to year, during a period of five years, provide one-fifth of the expenditure for this necessary work as a loss incurred in the management of the company, we feel that we ought to have sympathetic consideration from the Government. The proposals of the Clause are reasonable and do not make any startling suggestion that the Government could not accept, and I hope very much that the Chancellor will see his way to meet us in the matter.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I recognise that the problem we are discussing is one of very considerable complexity and that already the Government have done a certain amount. I would like to pay that tribute to them, because already, so far as Schedule A assessments are concerned in respect of buildings erected for this purpose, provided they are used for no other purpose, they are to be free of assessment, and we know that only this week we shall

have two Bills, one of them English and one Scottish, dealing with the exemption of air-raid shelters from assessment to local rates. We also know that the Government, after long negotiations, have come to an arrangement with the local authorities whereby about 75 per cent. of the expenditure incurred by the local authorities in the defence of the civilian population, will be a State charge. I took the view that they could not defray the whole of it, because if you have local administration without local responsibility you get wasteful administration. That is quite obviously true. If anyone is entitled to spend money which he has not the responsibility of raising, he will be wasteful. That is commonly understood.
Let me turn to another aspect of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) is familiar with the problem as it presents itself in the great industrial establishments of Birmingham. I have been examining the problem in an industry with which I have some connection, electricity supply. I am associated with the company side of the industry, two-thirds of which, I know, is municipal. Our problem is of even greater complexity, because every one will expect generation to be carried on even while an air raid is progressing, and that is going to impose on the electricity supply industry, and equally on the gas industry and the water supply industry, very heavy expenditure, some of it capital expenditure and some of it a form of current expenditure. I take it that the current expenditure will be a deductible charge against profits. Another problem arises under that heading. The Clause deals with capital expenditure, I understand, and the creation of an asset which has no economic or commercial value.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the hon. Member right in saying that the new Clause refers to capital expenditure? Capital expenditure is usually not deductible from profits.

Mr. Williams: That is why this Clause is moved. It refers to:
A sum amounting to one-fifth of any expenditure other than expenditure properly chargeable against revenue for the year.
I take it that, just like ordinary precautions against fire, current expenses are an ordinary charge against revenue. But


this is capital expenditure which is incurred in the long run for the purpose of national defence. It is not an economic asset, as such, of any value. The proposal is that this capital expenditure should be treated as if it were revenue expenditure, but that instead of the whole of it being written off in one year it should be written off in five years. It is very difficult to estimate what is going to be the magnitude of the capital expenditure forced upon industrial undertakings. I should not be at all surprised to find that for a year or so, at a rough guess, the electricity supply industry may find its expenditure in the neighbourhood of £200,000 or £250,000 a year, and a substantial part in the earlier years will be capital expenditure. These are very large sums which, in the interests of national defence, some undertakings will have to incur and others not, according to circumstances. Undertakings in areas which are more susceptible to attack than others will be called upon to incur much greater capital expenditure in relation to the total number of people they employ.
There is another problem besides those which the Government have already tackled. It would be unfair and unjust criticism of the Government to complain that they have not been able to deal with the numerous problems both economic and defensive, which will arise in large-scale air raids, but, in any case, the Government should be grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) for having raised this question. If it is not settled now it is bound to be raised later. This is a burden which is undertaken essentially in the national interest and not primarily as an individual interest, and it should at least be a national charge to a certain extent. As the State is now the sleeping partner in industry to the extent of 5s. 6d. in the £ in the balance of profits, plus a further amount in respect of the National Defence Contribution, when exceptional capital expenditure comes along the sleeping partner should be prepared to bear a fair part of that expenditure. In the days when Income Tax was not a very heavy charge the situation was different, but that charge is very heavy to-day, and it is only right that the sleeping partner, who does the least work and gets the most benefit, should bear a share of the burden. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find himself in a

position to examine this proposal sympathetically, and even though he cannot go the whole way in accepting it, I hope he will be able to present some alternative which will have the effect of distributing the burden which will arise more equitably than is the case under the law as it stands at the moment.

4.18 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am obliged to my hon. Friend who has just spoken for reminding the House that an effort has already been made in this Finance Bill to provide some relief in respect of air-raid precaution structures. It is to be found in Clause 17. I think that provision was generally approved by the House. I arrived at the conclusion that that Clause should be inserted in the Bill after examining the general problem from many points of view, not omitting the undoubtedly serious consideration urged by my hon. Friend who moved this Clause.
I am afraid, however, I cannot accept this new Clause, and I will shortly state why. It is not that I do not recognise that a very large and heavy burden in some cases may be thrown on factories and works, in making provision for air-raid precautions. Unless we can get the world into a better state than it is at present that burden is likely to fall upon all undertakings—and I cannot limit it to those mainly prosperous firms who employ a large number of individuals. Nor do I say that the action of firms and factories in providing air-raid precautions is unconnected with the useful and effective carrying on of their businesses. I am sure that it will be found to be very necessary in connection with the carrying on of the businesses that there should be proper precautions of this kind provided.
Let me take, not as a complete analogy, but as a useful illustration, something which can be set side by side with the present proposal. When I was Home Secretary I had the duty of carrying into law a Factory Bill, a very elaborate Measure which required all sorts of improvements in various directions in factories. Greater space, fire escapes, healthier places for washing and all the rest of it had to be provided for work-people in some cases, and all of that might well involve additional outlay and expenditure, as no doubt it did. I do not dispute that that outlay was a serious


burden; none the less it was thought right by Parliament, and was arrived at perfectly fairly after proper consideration on all sides of the House. Those requirements were very much more stringent than those which are now referred to, and involved in some cases additional capital expenditure. I received deputations from various employers of labour urging that the Clauses in question should not come into operation too quickly, because it would be necessary for them to make that capital expenditure, and I thought that was a very reasonable request. I do not say that that is a complete analogy, but it shows plainly to the House how additional capital expenditure has to be provided for by those who carry on factories or workshops in connection with matters which are as essential as those which are the subject matter of the present new Clause.
It is not some technicality or some lawyer's device, but an essential and very obvious distinction, that anybody proposing Income Tax deductions must bear in mind that those deductions must be in respect of revenue and not of capital. Income Tax is charged upon a calculation of annual profits, and before you fix the figures of the tax you are entitled to make certain deductions, but those deductions will always be found to be of a revenue character.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in those deductions the item of depreciation of capital works which are to be spread over five years?

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me first to finish my point. I agree that the point he has raised has to be considered. Income Tax, being in the nature of an annual recurring tax, must always be arrived at by deducting from the gross income items in the nature of revenue deductions. I do not believe there is any case in the Income Tax provisions relating to business profits in which you are entitled to make a deduction of capital against a revenue charge. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) spoke of an item of depreciation. I have no reason to suppose that at the end of five years those capital constructions will be exhausted and will have to be rebuilt. It has nothing to do with depreciation

at all. I agree that capital works such as plant and machinery would no doubt earn that allowance in respect of their wear and tear, but there is no justification for regarding this proposal as anything in the nature of a proposal for depreciation of things which have either been used a great deal or have fallen out of use. I do not see any reason why premises which are not going to be used should depreciate very rapidly, and, as things are, at the end of five years I hope we shall none of us need them.
It is not possible to justify the acceptance of such a principle. I do not doubt that the burden is serious, but it is merely a question of where we are to put the burden. It is a delusion to suppose that you will get rid of the burden by putting it upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be merely putting it upon the rest of the taxpayers of this country. I think we must face the uncomfortable fact that, as in the case of the improvements required by the factory laws so with air-raid precautions, these are in the nature of capital outlay and that the burden must be borne where it falls. I would make it plain that everything possible is done to include within legitimate revenue deductions expenditure which can be so regarded. I stated in answer, I think to the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), on 18th March this year, the kind of expenditure on which the Inland Revenue authorities would be prepared to permit deductions of a revenue character in respect of air-raid precautions, and they are very substantial. As the hon. Gentleman said, of course, we have to consider such things as the provision of respirators, protective clothing, the covering of certain things with precautionary material, the provision of screens, equipment of stores and first-aid plant and equipment for decontamination. Anything that can, on a favourable view, be regarded as a revenue charge shall be so regarded, and instructions have been so given.
Wear and tear allowance would certainly be allowed upon anything in the nature of plant and machinery, such as air-filtration plant, but when you get beyond that point it really is not practicable to accept without any demur or limit a proposal that outlay which is admittedly of a purely capital character should be treated as though it had suddenly become a revenue deduction. Those are the


broad considerations on which I regret to have to resist my hon. Friend's proposal. I do not wish to take any smaller points, but I would observe before I sit down that it is not very satisfactory to provide the test that the provision shall have been approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I do not know what kind of approval is intended, or whether it is suggested that the Home Department should prohibit people from spending more than a certain minimum amount. Neither do I think that the provision of the proposed new Clause is very reasonable. The main Clause says that this is to be allowed in connection with air-raid precautions and nothing else, while the proviso says that if at any time after four years it is found that the shelter has not been substantially used for the purpose of air-raid protection, the allowance provided for that shelter shall cease to be granted. That is to say, these people having enjoyed the use of the building for four years and also the relief in respect of it may, in the fifth year, change their minds and use the building for something else. These are matters which could be adjusted, but I want the House to understand that my difficulty in the matter is a difficulty really of principle, and I regret that I am not able to accept the Clause.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the Chancellor consider that a factory owner could prudently allow expenditure on constructing an air-raid shelter to appear as an asset in his balance sheet?

Sir J. Simon: I do not know; it would depend partly upon whether or not he was increasing the annual value of the premises by such a provision. With a private house it might be the case that the house was worth more with an air-raid shelter than without it.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: I am very disappointed that the Chancellor has not seen his way to grant some concession in connection with this Clause. He has pointed out that allowances are not made for modifications made in factories in accordance with the Factory Acts, but I think I am right in saying that there is no Section in the Factory Acts which would call for such a great expenditure as the provision of air-raid shelters involves. He referred, at

the conclusion of his speech, to the proviso to the Clause, and I was glad to note that he said that that could be in some way modified. Surely, to meet the possibility of the shelter being used for any other purpose after the allowance had been made, a suitable provision could be inserted so that tax which had been deducted could be repaid. I feel convinced that the absence of any provision for the remittance of Income Tax in such cases will restrict the provision of air-raid shelters more than any other factor. I agree that certain allowances have been granted. Local rates are not charged. But they are a very small matter compared with Schedule D and National Defence Contribution, and that is the main factor which prevents the building of these shelters. An expenditure of £3 per employé has been stated by one or two speakers to be necessary for providing these shelters. I am very surprised to hear that they can be supplied for that small amount. Probably it could be done in the case of factories where the whole of the land has not been built upon, but, where the land is built up, it is a very difficult problem to supply these shelters, and it is going to cost far more than £ per employé in the majority of cases in built-up areas, where these shelters are so very necessary. I am exceedingly sorry that the Chancellor is not able to see his way to grant some concession on this very important matter.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Valuation of farm workers' cottages.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act of 1918, a cottage let to a farm worker shall not have a higher annual value, so long as it is so let, than the rent actually paid by the farm worker for the cottage or, where no rent is actually paid by the occupier of the cottage, than the value of the cottage which, under the order of the value of the Agricultural Wage Committee for the district, may be reckoned as payment: of wages in lieu of payment in cash.—[Mr. W. Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
At the present time the valuation of farm workers' cottages for purposes of Income Tax is governed by the First


Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1918, which provides that the valuation shall be:
The amount of the rent by the year at which they are let, if they are let at rackrent and the amount of that rent has been fixed by agreement. …
But in those cases, which are increasing in number, in which the cottage is let, not at what can be called rackrent, but at a figure which may be fixed by, for instance, the agricultural wages committee, then the valuation is assessed according to the next paragraph, which reads as follows:
If they are not let at a rackrent so fixed, then the rackrent at which they are worth to be let by the year.
I suggest that this results in a somewhat anomalous and unjust position. A man whom I know took two cottages recently. One of them was let to an ordinary tenant at £32 a year, and was valued accordingly. The other cottage was let to an agricultural worker. The maximum rent which may be charged, under that particular agricultural wages committee, was 4s., and that figure was therefore charged; but the valuation of that cottage is the same as the valuation of the one that is let at£32 per year, and so the owner is charged Income Tax on the basis that both cottages are let at the higher figure.
I have often heard a Minister, in replying to Amendments dealing with agricultural landowners' Income Tax, suggest that this is a hardy perennial which comes up every year. But this proposal is not like that of the much wider Clause which was moved last night; it deals with a very small problem, and a special problem which really arises out of recent legislation. It arises also in connection with the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, where the rent is fixed by the local authority, and possibly the rent thus fixed is not the rent which could be obtained in the open market. There also, although, as in the case I have just mentioned, the landlowner is not in fact receiving the income, he is taxed on the basis of a larger income than he in fact receives. The present Clause proposes that the owner should be taxed on the income which he in fact receives, and not on some hypothetical income which he might receive; and it seems to me that that very limited proposal is a fair

one which should commend itself to the Minister and to the House. I know that hon. Members on the Labour benches sometimes feel that in these Clauses we are making a special plea for one particular class, but in this case I am making no suggestion that the ownership of agricultural houses or agricultural land is in any way different from the ownership of other houses or land; I am only suggesting that the owner should be taxed on the income which he actually receives, and not on something which it is presumed he might receive in other circumstances. It may be said that the provision of such houses, even if the rents are limited, improves the capital value of the land in question, but I am not suggesting that, so far as Death Duties or Estate Duties are concerned, the landowner should have any advantage; I am only suggesting that he should be assessed for Income Tax purposes on the basis of the rent that he actually receives.
I have not been able to make any estimate of what this might cost the Treasury. It cannot be a very large sum, though I admit that it may be a growing sum. If more houses for agricultural workers are to be provided under the new Housing Act by private individuals and not by local authorities, this same question will arise again. It also arises in connection will the question of rating, and it does appear to many owners to be a great hardship that they should be rated on a higher basis than the rent which they actually obtain. This is not the opportunity to deal with that anomaly, but I think the Chancellor, in dealing with a similar problem in connection with air-raid precautions at an earlier stage of the Finance Bill, suggested that it would be better that the assessment for purposes of Income Tax and rates should be on the same basis. If it should happen that he should accept this proposed new Clause now, perhaps some other opportunity might be afforded of altering the situation so far as it affects rating. As I was saying, I do not think it can involve a very large sum at the present time, but it is one of those small anomalies which prevent owners from increasing the number of their cottages, either by building new ones or by repairing old ones under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and for that reason, although the matter is a small one, I


think we might well do something to encourage owners to make an increase, which is badly needed, in the amount of accommodation available for agricultural workers on the land.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Would the hon. Member explain how his proposal would operate in such a case as this: Suppose that a farm worker is living in a tied cottage, and that he is receiving£2 a week and is getting his cottage at 6s. a week. What is to prevent the owner from saying "I will cut down the rent of your cottage from 6s. to 1s., and will cut down your wages from £2 to £1 15s."? That would make no difference to the agricultural worker, but it would relieve the owner of the cottage who employs the workman from a charge which he would otherwise have to meet.

Mr. Roberts: I do not think that that could occur under this Clause. The wages committee for the district fixes a maximum rent which may be deducted from the agricultural wage. It is possible that the valuation of the cottage at the present time might be less than that maximum rent, and the Clause would not increase the valuation above the existing figure. Similarly, the valuation could not be reduced, by an arrangement such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, below the figure which the agricultural committee has fixed, provided that the valuation was not originally lower than that figure. I suggest that a new arrangement could not be made under the Clause by which such a reduction could be effected. If the valuation had previously been 6s., and the allowance which might be deducted under the regulations of the agricultural wages committee was 4s., 4s. would be the lowest possible figure which could be deducted.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should think that as regards the second part of the Clause, where no wages have to be paid, the hon. Member is correct, but as regards the first part I do not think so.

Sir Hugh Seely: I beg to second the Motion.

4 45 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The right hon. Gentleman opposite raised a point with regard to the first part of the Clause, but, as the hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause might say, that was a matter which could

be adjusted. I would like, quite briefly, to state our objections to the Clause on rather wider grounds. If is quite clear that this is dealing with Schedule A assessments, which fall on the landowner or the farmer. Farm workers are not themselves assessed in respect of their cottages. If they were, they would be able to recover any of the Schedule A taxation which they were not able to pass on, because their incomes would be below the Income Tax limit. I think the Mover of the Clause was contemplating the ordinary case, in which the Schedule A assessment is on the landowner or the farmer. He said that under this Clause the effect would be to tax the landlord on the income which in fact he received, and not on a hypothetical income. Those familiar with the principles which underlie Schedule A taxation will realise that the principle which the hon. Member suggested is entirely contrary to the principle of Schedule A. Schedule A might be described as the tax on the landlord's interest and the rent represents the value of the landlord's interest, upon which it is, of course, based. It is fundamental to Schedule A that if the landlord of a house lets it for nothing, or for something below its value, that in no way affects Schedule A liability, which is intended to fall on the landlord in respect of the annual value of the land.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my right hon. and learned Friend speaking with respect to valuation for rating?

The Attorney-General: No; I am speaking of Schedule A Income Tax. That is what the Clause deals with. I think it is relevant to consider what is the position of a farmer under the Income Tax Acts. He can be assessed under Schedule B, which is an artificial method, or under Schedule D, whichever is the more favourable to him. What the hon. Member who moved the Clause was saying, in effect, is that where a farmer-landowner lets a cottage at a rent below the rack rent he is, to that extent, of course giving that value as wages, or at any rate, as expenses of the business he is carrying on, to the farm worker. If he chooses to he assessed under Schedule D, he can deduct as an expense the annual value of a cottage which he is letting rent-free, or the difference between the rent he is in fact getting and the annual value. Therefore, I think


there is no real unfairness in the operation of this rule when one analyses the position of the farmer. To that extent, he is already given the benefit of the Schedule B measure if it pays him. If, on the other hand, it does not pay him and he chooses to come under Schedule D, in the case which has been put he can deduct as an expense the annual value of the cottages which he lets rent-free.
Therefore, we do not think that a case has been made out for accepting what would, in fact, be a principle in respect of these houses fundamentally at variance with the principle on which Schedule A is based. The hon. Member gave a specific instance of two houses side by side, one let to a farm worker and the other to a non-farm worker. In that case, the annual value to the farm worker is very considerably above the rent received. I do not dispute that case, but I do not think it is a common one. I believe that in the case of most cottages, acting on the principle on which these cottages are valued, the Schedule A valuation is very little, if anything, different from the agricultural rent in the district.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 7.—(Customs Duty on re- imported films.)

4.51 P.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, to leave out "Section eleven of the Finance Act, 1925, or."
This Amendment and the next three Amendments to Clause 7 are really consequential on the addition of the new Clause 6 to the Bill. Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1925, will cease to apply, and the reference to that Section becomes unnecessary. That covers this Amendment and the next one. The other two Amendments which are to be moved to this Clause are made necessary because Section 3 of the Finance Act is being repealed by the new Clause, and it is therefore necessary to reproduce in full the definition of positive and negative cinematograph films. There is a further Amendment in this group—that is the Amendment in the name of my right hon.

Friend to be moved on the Fifth Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 8, line 28, leave out "relate," and insert "relates."

In line 39, leave out "or negative."

In page 9, line 1, leave out from the beginning to the first "or," in line 2, and insert:
(that is to say, a cinematograph film containing a picture for exhibition, whether developed or not) or a negative cinematograph film (that is to say, a cinematograph film containing a photograph, whether developed or not, from which positive cinematograph films can be printed)."—[Captain Wallace.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Increase of additional allowance in case of machinery and plant.)

4.55 P.m.

Mr. Batey: I beg to move, in page 16, line 36, to leave out "one-fifth," and to insert "one-eighth."
In the 1932 Finance Act, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an additional allowance to employers of labour for wear and tear of machinery in factories. Now, in this Clause, the Chancellor is proposing to increase that allowance. I want to limit that increase as much as I can. If I could, I would prevent any increase at all. This Clause is altogether different from Clause 5, in which the Chancellor is taking from the people, and especially from the poorer people, an additional tax by which he expects to receive £3,000,000. In this Clause, he is proposing to give to employers of labour an additional sum. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us when replying what is the amount he expects to receive; I have heard that it is equal to the amount that the Chancellor is taking on the Tea Duty. We strongly condemn taking from the poor of this country £3,000,000 in order to give it to the employers of labour.
Why this generosity to employers at this time? In 1932, when the then Chancellor gave the additional allowance to employers, he argued that industry was in a bad way—and it was. But that argument could not be used to-day. I would like the Chancellor to tell us whether the employers have asked for this. I have not seen any public demand. I have not noticed any demonstration of employers


in support of it. Does the Chancellor, by this action, want to encourage the installation of machinery and the dismissal of workers—because the more machinery is installed, the more workers are displaced. What was the amount by which the employers benefited from the allowance in 1932? This allowance in 1932 was not the only act of kindness that this Government has shown to the capitalists. There was the 1929 De-rating Act, by which industry was relieved of three-quarters of the local rate. I would like the Chancellor to tell us what was the amount of the concession that productive industry received in 1929. If my memory serves me aright, it was something like £29,000,000.
In addition to the 1929 and 1932 concessions, we have to remember, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer provided in the 1935 Finance Act for a deduction from profits in respect of contributions for rationalising industry. The Board of Trade was given power to certify schemes of which the object was the elimination of redundant machinery or plant in any industry in the United Kingdom. One was afraid that that encouragement might be taken advantage of to the disadvantage of the workers. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us what benefit that means to the employers, and now many schemes have been certified by the Board of Trade. I was reading the other day somewhere a statement that manufactures and industry enjoy privileges which are so complicated and varied that it seems impossible to assess their value. Before we make this concession to employers of a further increase on the wear and tear of machinery, we should know what have been the former amounts that employers of labour have got through this Government. The more relief that is given to employers in regard to machinery, the more machinery will be installed.
The Government ought not to encourage employers of labour to instal machinery. The time will come when this House will have to control the installation of machinery because so many men are being thrown out of employment through the use of machinery. The installation of machinery causes displacement of labour, and there is also danger to workmen through the use of machinery. We have had bitter experience for many years in the coal mines in regard to the installation

of machinery. In 1930 the amount of coal cut by machines in coal mines in the United Kingdom was 75,000,000 tons, and last year it had jumped to 137,000,000 tons. In 1930 there were 933,000 persons employed in the coal industry, and in 1937 the number had fallen to 739,000, a decrease of 200,000, due largely, some of us believe, to the use of machinery. That reduction is equal to two of our biggest coal districts being completely wiped out. In 1920 the figures were more staggering still. There were then 1,249,000 persons employed, so that from 1920 to 1937 there was a reduction in the number employed in the coal mines of this country of over 500,000. Although there were 500,000 fewer persons employed in 1937, there were only 4,000,000 tons more coal produced than in 1920. From our experience in connection with the coal mines in this country, we believe that machinery is to blame to a large extent for that position. There is also the danger from the use of machinery, and the staggering fact is that last year in the coal mines of this country——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The hon. Gentleman is now going on to say the thing he said he could not say without being out of order.

Mr. Batey: I want to argue that the Government by their action are encouraging employers of labour to instal machinery. The more we give rebates the more machinery will be installed. I was arguing that that was not a wise departure, and I was trying to illustrate that from the bitter experience we have had of the coal mines. However, I will leave the argument there. The late Prime Minister made more than one appeal to employers of labour to employ more men. That appeal fell upon deaf ears, and I submit that one of the questions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should always keep in mind in dealing with these matters, is the taking of such steps as will encourage the employment of workers, and not steps which will be the means of throwing more workers out of employment.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not agree with all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) as regards the


use of machinery. I would like to see machinery doing the whole of the underground work of the mine and the sooner the better. But I want adequate provision to be made for displaced workers. All the hard and dangerous work in the world should be done by machinery, if possible, but my complaint is that, as it displaces labour to some extent, provision is not made for that displaced labour. I rise to second the Amendment because I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can really afford this concession at the moment. Yesterday he very generously made two fairly substantial concessions to appeals from this side for which we were all very grateful. In making those concessions he informed the House that he was going to lose substantially, and he could scarcely afford to do it. The Chancellor thinks that this is a concession that he ought to make in view of the burdens placed upon industry, but I have my doubts whether it is necessary to make this concession at this time.
The Chancellor has based his Budget on very heavy expenditure, and I believe that he would have been justified in telling employers of labour that at the moment he could ill-afford this concession. My hon. Friend said he thought the concession was equal to the increase of the duty on tea, but I am not sure. If it is anywhere in that region, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been better advised if he had not put the increased duty on tea and had not made this concession. I hope that the Chancellor can satisfy the House to-day that there is good reason for this concession, and that it is to the advantage of the workers in industry that this concession should be made.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I take exception to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), seeing that he took some exception to some of the remarks of the mover of the Amendment, especially when he says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made substantial concessions yesterday. Very great consideration is always shown to the employers, as is evident in connection with this Clause that we are now discussing. There is never anything like the same consideration afforded to the workers. The so-called concession that was made

yesterday was, in face of an argument that could not be met, to hide the fact that a deliberate and positive swindle was being carried out on a section of the working class. It is a swindle which should not be tolerated, and it would never be tolerated by the employers. If, instead of concessions to the employers, such an obvious and transparent fraud as that which was discussed yesterday in connection with the workers and the unemployed were perpetrated upon employers by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not last long in his job.
In this Clause we have the Chancellor deliberately and gratuitously offering a concession to the employers. In the course of the Debate on the Tea Duty one of the many employers sitting on the benches opposite—if they do not happen to be employers who sit on the other side, they are lawyers who represent the employers, so that there is never any fear of the employers not having their case properly considered or their profits properly looked after—told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the employers were quite surprised at the generous offer that he had made. I would like to see a situation arise where the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any representative of the Government would get up and make at any time an offer, however small, to any section of the working class which had not been strenuously fought for. I have never heard of such a thing. It takes years and generations to get the most modest concession for any section of the workers, but here, when the Tea Duty was being discussed——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Gallacher: I was on the point of repeating that a few nights ago an hon. Member of this House could make the statement that this concession was utterly unexpected and further that this Amendment was unnecessary. I ask you whether that is not in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member certainly was not saying that when I called him to order.

Mr. Gallacher: I am prepared to accept your Ruling on any point, but I think that in putting forward an argument of that character, where an hon. Member


on the other side who represents the employers said that this concession was not expected and that it was not necessary, makes it clear that the Amendment should be readily accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that is a very sound argument. I do not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be prepared now to say that, in view of the fact that no demand had been made by the employers for this concession, that a representative of the employers had stated that it was not expected and was not necessary, he was prepared to accept the Amendment, and reduce the concession from one-fifth to one-eighth or, better still, go the whole hog and wipe out the concession.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come forward with a concession voluntarily offered to any section of the working classes—which is something that has never happened—and a representative of labour on this side had said that the concession was completely unexpected and quite unnecessary, I am certain that he would have had no hesitation in withdrawing the concession and in saying: "If it is not expected and it is not necessary, arid you do not want it, I will not give the concession. I have so much need for money, and there are so many other directions in which the concession can better be made, and where it would be more apppreciated." I ask him to accept the Amendment and to take into account the fact that no demand of any kind has come from the employers for such a concession, that we have had the statement from the employers' side that the concession was not expected and is not necessary, that he should save the money and then make a request to us, and we will advise him how to use the money in a concession that will be of benefit to the people of the country.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: Sometimes I find it necessary to disagree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think someone ought to say a few words complimenting him on this Clause. The last speaker tried to make out that there has never been any demand for the concession. For years this concession has been asked for. I have for years had my name down to Amendments seeking such a concession, and I sincerely compliment the right hon. Gentleman on having put this Clause into

the Finance Bill. I cannot understand why the Amendment should have been moved. Unquestionably, the concession is of advantage to the employers and unquestionably it is a tremendous advantage to the employés. [HoN. MEMBERS: "In what way?"] I will point out the way. I am surprised that anyone who is connected with the engineering trade should oppose the concession. If there is one thing that is needed in this country it is, surely, that we should keep our industries up to date so far as plant is concerned. Nothing in this Finance Bill will do more to enocurage the displacement of out-of-date machinery and the substitution of up-to-date machinery than this Clause. From that point of view it will give added employment to the engineering industry.
There is another point in regard to the export trade. If we are to succeed in this country we must have the most up-to-date plant and the latest things that can be obtained in order to produce goods to compete with other countries. Therefore, I regard this Clause as a very useful addition to the Finance Bill, and I am astonished to hear anyone from the Labour benches suggest that it is merely a one-sided Clause. In the long run it is no concession, because an employer, finally, when he substitutes machinery can claim for obsolescence. I sincerely thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession, and I am sure that any long-sighted representatives of the employés will equally thank him, because the Clause is an encouragement to employers to replace old plant by new plant and the latest machinery.

5.22 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) for what he has said. I realise that in any Finance Bill there are Clauses which are the subject of controversy and challenge, but I did think that this provision was one which would be recognised as being intelligently conceived for reasons and purposes with which we all have sympathy. Of course, if one takes the view that anything in the world which can be described as reducing the burden of a portion of the Income Tax on what are called the employers, is both necessarily evil and unjust, and that view is put forward by persons who claim to represent the


workers, then that is an end of all argument. We cannot usefully discuss the matter any further. If, however, we are treating this fairly and squarely as a House of Commons matter and it is admitted that we are doing our best in the circumstances, it is a matter for argument.
I should have thought that it was generally admitted that in regard to Income Tax there should be proper deduction made for wear and tear of machinery. Wear and tear of plant and machinery means, of course, that year by year the machinery is wearing out and becoming less useful and less valuable, and that the day will come when it has to be replaced. It is not open to any sort of challenge from any economist that if you have an Income Tax it is right to make an allowance for wear and tear. Mr. Snowden, who was no mean economist in these matters, explained very clearly in 1932, when there was an increased rate of Income Tax, why he was adding to the deduction made for wear and tear.
It is not true to say that this is an unmixed concession to employers. It has the effect of accelerating the date at which new machinery will be put in; the plant will be written off more quickly. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) views machinery as an evil and is of opinion that the less machinery there is, the better. Presumably, from his argument, it is legitimate to lower a man down a pit by some piece of machinery and perhaps to permit him to dig with a shovel, but if you go further than that you are indulging in a very dangerous misapplication of machinery. That sort of objection to machinery was taken many years ago by people who were called Luddites. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor is a good representative of that honest point of view, but I do not agree with his economics. I prefer the economics of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), who seconded the Amendment.
When it was decided to increase the Income Tax for this year I had very grave concern as to what the effect would be in two directions, and I regret that the hon. Member for Spennymoor, who spoke so scathingly, seemed to have concentrated his attention entirely on one of

these points and to have forgotten the other. One of my concerns was the effect of the increased Income Tax on the small man, the struggling man, and by an arrangement of the tax we were able to make provision so that 2,000,000 small Income Tax payers would not suffer what they would otherwise have suffered under the increased tax. The other concern that I had was this. It is perfectly just that if you need to raise more revenue you should seek to get a portion of it by direct taxation, and I felt that I was justified, in the circumstances in which I found myself, in putting up the rate of Income Tax. There is, however, one consideration in regard to Income Tax which is extremely serious for employment in this country, and that is that if you put too high taxation upon certain forms of industry, with the result that you reduce the reserves, you make it impossible for that branch of industry to expand and develop as one would like.
It is a delusion, a very foolish and ignorant delusion, to suggest that what I propose is to let off the rich taxpayer. As a matter of fact 5s. 6d. in the £ and no less is what is paid by every big shareholder in every one of the concerns affected by this proposal. I pointed out that if we increased the Income Tax from 5s. to 5s. 6d. and we did not increase the allowance for wear and tear, we were running a very grave danger that these big basic trades, trades which give a great deal of employment, would be seriously handicapped if we debarred them from that development which is essential if the people engaged in those trades are to be properly employed. I do not believe that that was a partisan view or a biased view. I think that it appealed very widely to people of all parties and points of view, and whatever else may be open to dispute I think that this particular provision is justified. The hon. Member for Spennymoor does not propose to reject the Clause.

Mr. Batey: Because I could not. I would if I could.

Sir J. Simon: He proposes a reduction to one-eighth. I can see no reason in that proportion at all. There is no relation between the two things. The object of the provision was to save the reserves which are connected with the carrying on of these important basic trades which


give such great employment in this country. I am willing at all times to receive with good temper any criticism that is made, but I did really think that on this particular proposal I had a great deal of merit on my side. Anyone who looks at the interests of our engineering trade in its wider aspects must realise how impossible and futile it would be to accept the advice that really machinery in this country is a bad thing. We know how absolutely necessary it is to encourage the production of up-to-date plant. I do not think really that this particular provision is the worst of the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. G. Macdonald: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what is the value of the concession?

Division No. 295.]
AYES.
[5.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Hambro, A. V.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hannah, I. C.


Albery, Sir Irving
Craven-Ellis, W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Harbord, A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Harris, Sir P. A.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crowder. J. F. E.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Apsley, Lord
Cruddas, Col. B.
Heilggrs, Captain F. F. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Assheton, R.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeevil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
De Chair, S. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
De la Bére, R.
Hepworth, J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Denville, Alfred
Higgs, W. F.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H,
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Doland, G. F.
Holdsworth, H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Donner, P. W.
Holmes, J. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Drewe, C.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Haek., N.)


Bernays, R. H.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hulbert, N. J.


Blair, Sir R.
Duggan, H. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hunloke, H. P.


Boulton, W. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hunter, T.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hurd, sir p. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Emery, J. F.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Keeling, E. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Bull, B. B.
Everard, W. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fildes, Sir H.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Findlay, Sir E.
Kimball, L.


Butcher, H. W.
Fleming, E. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Foot, D. M.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lees-Jones, J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Furness, S. N.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cary, R. A.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lewis, O.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Liddall, W. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Lipson, D. L.


Channon, H.
Gledhill, G.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Loftus. P. C.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Christie, J. A.
Grant-Ferris, R.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Granville, E. L.
MoCorquodale, M. S.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gratton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gridley, Sir A. B.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McKie, J. H.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Macquisten, F. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Grimston, R. V.
Maitland, A.


Cooper, Rt.Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Sir J. Simon: I think it will be not less than £2,500,000 this year, probably more in a full year.

Mr. Gallacher: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer the slightest concern for the reserves of the working classes?

Sir J. Simon: Certainly, and if the hon. Member will acquaint himself at his leisure with the provisions of the National Defence Contribution he will find that it has nothing whatever in the world to do with their reserves. That is a charge on profits which are made in the course of business.

Question put, "That the word one-fifth' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 129.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Marsden, Commander A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Tate, Mavis C.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Rowlands, G.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Titchfield, Marquess of


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Moreing, A. C.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Morgan, R. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Turton, R. H.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Salt, E. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Munro, P.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Nevon-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Selley, H. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Warrender, Sir V.


Owen, Major G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Peake, O.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Perkins, W. R. D.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Petherick, M.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smiles, Lieut-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Pilkington, R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
White, H. Graham


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Procter, Major H. A.
Smithers, Sir W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Radford, E. A.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wise, A. R.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Spens. W. P.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'id)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wragg, H.


Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)



Remer, J. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Captain Hope and Major Sir




James Edmondson.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pearson, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Poole, C. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sanders, W. S.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton. T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
John, W.
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. B
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O.(Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
McGovern, J.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mander, G. le M.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marklew, E.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.



Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

5.43 P.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I desire to rise to a point of Order. I was one of a group of Members who came down from the Committee upstairs immediately on hearing the Division Bell, but I found myself with one or two other hon. Members locked in the doorway to the House by a large number of hon. Members who were grouped there. I tried to get into the "Aye" Lobby but was prevented from doing so owing to the fact that the door was locked. I know that one door must be locked before another, but it so happens that the door on the "Aye" side is locked first much more frequently than the door on the other side. I do not wish to lay emphasis on that point, but to say that I came down directly from the Committee room upstairs in conjunction with other hon. Members, but owing to the crowd in the doorway to the House I was unable to get through and was prevented from going into the Lobby because the door was locked.

Hon. Members: What is your point of Order?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: My point of Order is that I desire that my Vote shall be recorded in the "Aye" Lobby.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that is impossible. The hon. Member must get as much consolation as he can from feeling that he would have voted in the "Aye" Lobby if he could.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I have noticed that for the last three or four weeks the "Aye" Lobby door at the end of the Chamber has been closed first, and I would like to make the suggestion that the "No" Lobby door should be closed first.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it is the usual practice for the "Aye" Lobby door nearest the doors of the House to be locked first, and then the "No" Lobby door. At this end of the Chamber it is the other way round.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Further to the point of Order. Can you give any Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in regard to the congregation of hon. Members in the doorway as it completely prevents an hon. Member recording his vote in the Lobby. I should like to point out clearly and definitely that through no fault of my own I was prevented from recording my vote in the "Aye" Lobby.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would facilitate matters if hon. Members would recall that there are other hon. Members who wish to go through the doorway to the Division Lobby, and I think hon. Members should do their best to facilitate their access.

5.45 P.m.

Mr. Ede: Further to the point of Order. I wish to ask your Ruling on the following point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. When you give the order "Lock the doors," should the attendant admit any other Members to the Lobby after you have pronounced those words? I was sitting on this bench during the last Division, watching the door, and when you gave the order, there were six or seven hon. Members standing close to the door, pushing one another, and they were allowed to proceed into the Lobby before the door was locked. I do not complain, but it seemed to me that those Members were obstructing the attendant in carrying out the order you had given to him to lock the doors.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not see that myself, but I have often noticed Members in all parts of the House taking advantage of the fact that one door into their Lobby was locked rather later than the other, and getting in by the later locked door.

Mr. Ede: I have observed the same thing, and practised it on occasion; but the point to which I wanted to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was that the attendant was hindered in carrying out your order by the fact that there was such a press of Members that he could not close the door, let alone lock it.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Further to the point of Order. I do not know whether there is any rule or regulation according to which one door must be closed before the other. If there is, in view of the fact that it is completely impossible for the one attendant to be present at both doors at the same time, I suggest that the State might provide another attendant to look after the other door.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point with which I can deal.

Mr. McGovern: Further to the point of Order. Is it not about time that some more intelligent system of voting was adopted?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Further to the point of Order. Could it not be made clear to all hon. Members in future that no door is locked until you give the order "Lock the doors," and has there not in the past been ample time for Members to come from all parts of the House to take part in a Division? Is not the time that is allowed given for that purpose?—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have always understood that that was so.

CLAUSE 28.—(Provisions as to absolute interests in residue.)

5.48 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I beg to move, in page 30, line 10, at the end, to insert:
Provided that when the legacy duty charged on the residue, or on the part thereof in which that person has an absolute interest, as the case may be, has been paid in respect of income for any such year or part of a year as aforesaid, his residuary income for that year shall thereafter be treated for the purposes of Surtax as reduced by the amount of that duty so far as paid in respect of such income.
I invite the attention of the House to what I fear is a somewhat less interesting matter than that which we have just been discussing which forms the subject matter of this Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is to implement a pledge which was given, on the Committee stage, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson), and it deals with the following situation. We are altering the law as regards the administration of estates in a number of Clauses contained in Part III of the Bill. For the first time, we are treating as income of a residuary legatee the sums of money which arise on income account between the death of the testator and the final administration of the estate. Hitherto, those sums of money have, on the completion of the administration, passed to the residuary legatee as a mixed fund of capital and of income. We are now, for the first time, by a method which I do not need to explain, as it has been explained previously, treating the residuary legatee as though, in the interval between the death and the administration, he were in receipt of a notional income.
It was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings on the Committee stage that by that somewhat fictitious

method, we take no account of the fact that, in the course of those years, legacy duty became payable on what the notional income in those years would be. A promise was given at that time, that, as that seemed to be a hardship, the matter would be rectified. We are now rectifying it. It is being rectified only in so far as Surtax is concerned, because to rectify it in the case of Income Tax would deprive quite small residuary legatees of the relief by way of repayment when they had paid legacy duty. They will retain that benefit. But it seemed a hardship that people should be treated as though they had received income when, in fact, the State had taken it in respect of their income interest.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I would not have risen to speak on this Amendment had it not been for the fact that the learned Solicitor-General and the Chancellor have, on more than one occasion during the passage of the Finance Bill, lectured hon. Members on this side of the House on the basic principles of taxation and refused to accept some proposals which we moved because, they said, those proposals violated these principles. I draw the Solicitor-General's attention to the fact that this Amendment involves the violation of two separate and distinct principles of taxation. For the first one the Amendment is not responsible; but we have here an extraordinarily anomalous position. The legacy duty, which is primarily a tax upon the capital value of the legacy left, is, either because of bad drafting or because of some ancient legal decision, not only charged on the capital value of the legacy, but is charged upon a certain income which has accumulated after the death. From the date of the death, that income is definitely the income of the beneficiary; it may not be so legally, but in fact it is; and in no circumstances should that income be liable to the tax on the legacy.
In order to rectify the hardship of that, the hon. and learned Gentleman has moved an Amendment, not to relieve the income which has accrued after death from Legacy Duty, but to allow the Legacy Duty which is charged to be set against that income for Surtax assessment purposes. In other words, he suggests that a capital charge should be


set against income for assessment purposes, which is in violation of Income Tax principles. On an Amendment which was moved this afternoon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down that any sums set against income must be deductions of a revenue kind, and that nothing of a capital character could be set against income for the purpose of assessment. By this Amendment, the Government propose to rectify an anomaly by introducing another anomaly; namely, the setting of a capital charge against income for assessment purposes. This Amendment involves a double violation of the basic canons of taxation. It arose from an Amendment moved on the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson). The hon. Member for Hastings is a new Member; and this is the first Finance Bill in the Debates on which he has taken part. He has succeeded already in corrupting the Chancellor, in undermining the morals of the Board of Inland Revenue, and in playing havoc with the principles of the Solicitor-General. That is a good start. What the condition of our taxation law will be by the time the hon. Member is father of the House, I hesitate to think.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Interpretation of Part III.)

5.54 P.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 38, line 8, at the end, to insert:
(10) References to sums paid or payable in respect of an absolute or limited interest in the residue of the estate of a deceased person, or in a part thereof, shall, in the application of this Part of this Act for the purposes of Surtax, be construed as excluding any sum paid or payable in discharge of any legacy duty charged in respect of that absolute or limited interest.
This Amendment, to which I ought to have referred when dealing with the last Amendment, deals with exactly the same thing in the case of a life tenant, or in the case of a residuary legatee who is also a life tenant.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 33.—(Application of Part III to Scotland.)

5.55 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 39, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(2) For the purpose of the application of this Part of this Act to Northern Ireland, for any reference to the sum of one thousand

pounds charged by virtue of Section forty-six of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, there shall be substituted a reference to the sum of five hundred pounds to which a widow is entitled by virtue of Section two of the Intestates' Estates Act, 1890.
In Clause 32, Sub-section (6), the expression "Charges on residue" is defined, for the purposes of the administration of these Clauses, as meaning certain liabilities and interest payable in respect of those liabilities, which comprise, among other things,
general legacies (including in the case of an intestacy the sum of one thousand pounds.
That sum is the statutory charge on a residuary estate when it is attested in England and Wales, but the sum involved in similar circumstances in Northern Ireland is £500. This Amendment, which deals with Northern Ireland, would bring the Clause into conformity with the law in Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 35.—(Income arising under certain settlements to be treated as income of settlor.)

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 42, line 3, after "if," to insert "under the express terms of the settlement."
This Amendment and the following Amendment in my name raise a point which is difficult and technical, but which, in my opinion, is of great substance, and I will try to explain it to the House as clearly as I can. Subsections (3) and (4) of this Clause have the laudable object of trying to stop settlements created by a settlor which contains powers of accumulation and provisions under which the settlor during his life may make that accumulation his own. Everyone is in favour of this method of tax evasion, when it is tax evasion, being stopped, but as the Clause is worded, it applies to every settlement, whenever it is made, where the settlor is still alive, and in which the settlement contains a provision for the accumulation of any income during the settlor's life, by whoever are the trustees or whoever is the owner of that income, other than the settlor, and in which in any circumstances whatsoever any part of that income, or the property of which it is the fruit, may come back to the settlor or the settlor's wife. That drags in the doctrine


with which lawyers in one particular division are more familiar than others, namely, resulting trusts. I will explain to the House what that means. A settlor makes a settlement, believing that he has completely disposed of the property which he has settled, but owing to a subsequent event, it is found that, because sombody does not attain a certain age, or because somebody does not survive somebody else, or because of some other provision of that description by which the property would pass from one to the other, the person who was intended to take the property fails to fulfil the conditions under which he ought to have taken it, and the property turns out, because of events which happen years after the settlement, to have no owner. In those circumstances the property, under this doctrine of resulting trusts, reverts back to and becomes the property of the original settlor—much to his surprise in almost every case and against his intentions when he attempted to dispose of the property.
Let me give another instance. Assume that he has settled the property by every means in his power so as to confer it upon other people, with a series of limitations and gifts, one after another, to a series of people. There, another doctrine comes into play, that is the horrible doctrine called the rule against perpetuities. Although he has those limitations depriving him absolutely of the property some ingenious lawyer may suggest at some future time, that one of those limitations is invalid, because it offends against the rule against perpetuities and in certain circumstances may succeed in establishing that case. Therefore the gift in that case will fail to take effect; the property will be found to be undisposed of, under the terms of the settlement, and then, under the doctrine of resulting trusts, back it goes to the original settlor, entirely against his expectation, he having been advised and having acted under the belief that he had deprived himself entirely of all interest in it.
As this Clause is worded, every existing settlement of which the settlor is still alive, will have to be examined at once by the Revenue Department who will have to ask the question: "Are there any provisions in the settlement, or are there any circumstances under which this

property may come back again to the settlor?" A series of people concerned in the settlement may have died out in the lifetime of the settlor and, in such circumstances, the property would come back to the settlor. If it be possible to argue—although no court would ever allow it to be argued, apart from this provision, until it became a question of material fact—that some of the ultimate limitations are affected by the rule against perpetuities, or that for some other technical reason the property in the settlement, or some part of it, might come back to the settlor, what will be the effect? It will be this. If at any time during the life of the settlor, the trustees of that settlement, over whom the settlor has no control, are accumulating part of the income under the powers in that settlement, or under the direction of the owner of the income, that income becomes, under this Clause, part of the income of the original settlor.
In the cases which I have suggested he has no control over them. He has made an absolute disposition but, for one reason or another, has failed to carry it out. The property is in the hands of strangers. He cannot prevent accumulation being made but if the trustees have power to accumulate or the owner of the income directs that some part of it shall be accumulated, then accumulated it will be and he will come within the provisions of Sub-section (3). The original settlor, if he is unfortunate enough still to be alive, will find this accumulation of income added to his own income for Surtax purposes. I am certain that was never the intention of those who drafted the Clause but with very great respect to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I submit that the instances which I have mentioned would clearly fall within the provisions of the Clause as now drafted. For that reason I desire to cut out altogether from this Clause the doctrine of resulting trusts and to strike out the words "in any circumstances whatsoever" substituting for them the words "if under the express terms of the settlement." If there is an express provision under which the settlement permitted some part of the income to be accumulated and to come back to the settlor, if there is any device expressed in the


settlement by which the income would come back, then that device will be caught.
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will possibly make two answers to my criticism. One I imagine will be that there are four exceptions in the proviso. I have considered them carefully and they do not cover anything like the number of cases that may arise and are not any real protection. The other answer may be that if resulting trusts are excluded, and the Clause is made to apply only to settlements which expressly provide for the income coming back to the settlor, it may open up a loophole by which clever conveyancers could apply the doctrine of resulting trusts so as to get some accumulations of income back to the settlor. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to accept now and for this year the Amendment which I propose. Let the Clause be confined this year to the express provisions of existing trusts. The Clause, as it is drawn now, is made to apply to every existing settlement and there must be masses of cases in which you will have a situation such as I have outlined, where there is no ultimate gift and where there is in existence some possible resulting trust never intended for the purpose of evading taxation. It may be because the drafting of the settlement was bad or because the draftsman thought he had made certain that in no circumstances could a resulting trust ever take effect.
If it turns out that anybody is ingenious enough to use the doctrine of resulting trusts so as to get an accumulation back—I have not tried to do it myself but perhaps it would not be beyond the capabilities of a very clever draftsman to attempt something of the kind—it cannot result in any great loss to the revenue during the next 12 months, and a proper Clause to deal with this situation could be submitted next year. But I ask my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend to consider this point very seriously before they allow the Clause to go into the Bill in its present form. I think if they examine it they will find that, in order to catch a comparatively small number of cases of evasion, they are going to cause a great deal of trouble in regard to settlements executed many years ago, long before the question of tax evasion ever came to the front, with the possible result of causing income to

be aggregated with a settlor's income in circumstances which were never intended to be covered by this legislation.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am bound to say I can conceive of no wider words than those words in Subsection (4):
any income or property which may … become payable to or applicable to the benefit of the settlor … in any circumstances whatsoever.
I take leave to doubt whether it was the intention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those words should have the effect which I think they will have. This Sub-section would apply in cases where intestacy has the effect of bringing back money quite unexpectedly to the settlor. As long as there is a chance of that this Sub-section applies. Take a simple example. Suppose that someone leaves money in trust to accumulate for three children, and all three children die. It is conceivable that the money might come back to the settlor or the wife or husband of the settlor. In that event the Sub-section would apply, and I feel certain that is not the intention of my right hon. Friend. That being the case, while the possibility of such an event exists the settlor must be deemed, in the words of the Section, "to have an interest in" the income. The effect of the Clause might be as if it were stated that "in all cases, a settlor, for the purposes of the foregoing Section, shall be deemed to have an interest in the property or income" except in the four cases covered by the proviso. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) that there are many cases not covered by those four concessions made in the proviso and, subject to anything which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate may have to say, I assume that the law of Scotland will operate in the same way as the law of England in this respect. I do not wish to enlarge further on the subject which has been dealt with fully by my hon. and learned Friend but I would ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he thinks the words of the Amendment are too narrow to consider making his own words less wide, and evolving some form designed to avoid the injustice which I feel


certain will follow if this Clause passes as it is drawn at present.

6.12 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: We are dealing here with a type of tax evasion which was described by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I think by myself during the Committee stage of the Bill. It is this. A kind of money-box is created. A trust is set up for the accumulation of income, and what we have provided is that, in so far as the income of a trust fund of that kind is not distributed, then if the settlor has a resulting interest in the fund, the income, so far as it is not distributed, shall be treated as his. We have made certain exceptions, which appear in Sub-section (4), but it is important to bear in mind the subject-matter with which we are dealing—the case of a fund used as a money-box for accumulation, with a power under which ultimately this fund is to inure to the benefit of the settlor.
The exceptions that have already been made are cases of bankruptcy, assignments, marriage settlements, and death under the age of 25. If the House accepts it, there is a further Amendment on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend designed to exclude all cases of trusts where income may be accumulated for a beneficiary under the age of 25, whatever the beneficiary's interest may be on attaining that age. We consider that those exceptions meet all the normal cases that are likely to arise. Normally, it is only where minor children are beneficiaries under the settlement that we find income being accumulated. To that extent the substance of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment has already been met. I would like also to emphasise the fact that there could never be a resulting trust to the settlor where the property of the settlement is taken absolutely by the beneficiary. It is only where the beneficiaries have contingent interests that a resulting trust ever arises.
My hon. and learned Friend threw out the suggestion that I might possibly say that his Amendment offered prospects of evasion, and with that part of his argument I entirely agree. But I do not agree with him that it would require a very skilful draftsman to determine how that evasion could take place, because what he is proposing really would defeat the

whole purpose of the Clause. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the settlor to arrange that the income should be accumulated on a trust that he knew certainly would fail, and which indeed he could cause to fail, and thereby obtain the benefit of the income. Let me take an example. Supposing that the settlor makes his settlement in favour of a beneficiary aged 80, and the settlement provides that the income is to be accumulated for a period of 20 years, with a resulting trust to himself, it would not take a very experienced draftsman to draft a settlement of that kind. That would be perfectly legal under the provision that my hon. and learned Friend would put in the Bill in substitution for ours.

Mr. Spens: I did ask for this provision to go in this year, because, to take my hon. and learned Friend's instance, which is a perfectly proper one, it is most unlikely that the lady aged 8o would die before the next Finance Bill comes in, and unless she did, there would be nothing to go back to the settlor. I would suggest that if the hon. and learned Gentleman announces this year that any trust created after this date for the purpose of bringing about a resulting trust will be hit, it will meet the case.

The Solicitor-General: I am afraid I do not find my hon. and learned Friend's argument very attractive, because he agrees with me, I understand, that there is an enormous loophole created by his Amendment, a loophole which any conveyancer would be able to see at once, if indeed my observations at this Box were not drawn to his attention, and I cannot conceive that it can be right that, knowing there is such a loophole as this, we should leave it in existence for another year. It would simply be making trouble. Nor has the hon. and learned Member indicated how he would deal with the situation next year; he has not suggested any form of words which would prevent the difficulties that I have been describing. In the situation that I have described, the lady would be 81, and there would be 19 years to go, and still there would be the resulting trust in favour of the settlor.
I know that it is a very valuable deterrent that it should be said from this Box that if there be evasion, legislation of a retrospective character would be brought in later on to deal with it, but obviously


that is a method the use of which must not be unlimited. I am bound to point out that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would leave this gigantic loophole, which anybody can see, and that it does not suggest any way in which it can be corrected, and in view of the fact that all reasonable exceptions have been provided for, or will be provided for, I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 42, line 23, to leave out "twenty-five," and to insert "thirty."
This is an Amendment to one of the excepting provisos. As drafted, it excepts a case where the settlor would only succeed to the property on the death, under the age of 25, of some person who is the beneficiary entitled to the property. It is true that 25 is a very common age at which to give persons their full vested rights in property, but in a very great number of existing settlements the age of 30 exists, and I would therefore ask whether it is not possible for 30 to be substituted here.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend, I think, agrees that 25 is the more common age. I have no doubt that there may be one or two exceptional cases, here and there, where the age is given as 30, but all normal cases will be covered by the exception as the paragraph now stands. You have to draw a line somewhere; you cannot let the age rise to 70 or 80. If we advanced it to my hon. and learned Friend's figure of 30, we might be asked to increase it to 35, and then the 35's might think that 40 would be the more suitable age. In the circumstances, I think 25 is a reasonable compromise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.23 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 42, line 26, at the end, to insert:
or if and so long as some person is alive and under the age of twenty-five during whose life that income or property cannot become payable or applicable as aforesaid except in

the event of that person becoming bankrupt or assigning or charging his interest in that income or property.
Sub-section (4) of Clause 35, the one that we have just been dealing with, defines the circumstances in which a settlor is deemed to have an interest in the income or property of a settlement for the purposes of Sub-section (3). To this general provision, however, the proviso to Sub-section (4) makes certain exceptions. Representations have been made to my right hon. Friend by hon. Members in the House that there are some genuine cases that will not be covered by the present exception in Sub-section (4, d), which provides an exception in favour of settlements where the funds will revert to the settlor only on the death of a beneficiary under the age of 25 or some lower age who would have become entitled to the property on attaining that age. The type of case which they have in mind is where the income of the settlement is being accumulated until the beneficiary reaches the age of 25 but at that age will not be entitled to the accumulated income or property of the settlement but only to the life interest in future income of the settlement. What is suggested is that there is no reason why that case should be brought within Subsection (3) any more than the cases which are already exempted under paragraph (d).
My right hon. Friend feels that there is a great deal of substance in that suggestion and this Amendment has been drafted to cover not only that case but also any other case where income is being accumulated for a beneficiary under 25, whatever his interest on attaining that age, provided that the funds cannot revert to the settlor during the beneficiary's life, except in the event of that person becoming bankrupt or assigning his interest in the income or property.

Amendment agreed to.

6.26 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 43, line 15, at the end, to insert: "and
(c) the provisions of this Sub-section shall have effect, in relation to a settlement made before the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, subject to the provisions of Part 11 of the Third Schedule to this Act, and in that Part of that Schedule this Section is referred to as 'the relative Section.' 


This Amendment is put down in pursuance of a promise given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), on the Committee stage of the Bill, that an Amendment would be introduced to ensure that in the case of really genuine revocable settlements, where there was no intention to evade taxation, if prompt steps were taken to make those settlements irrevocable those settlements should not be treated as revocable settlements under the Bill. This Amendment as it stands only gives authority for the inclusion of the detailed provisions which are now made in the Third Schedule to the Bill, but if it would be for the convenience of the House and not passing beyond the Rules of Order, I would propose to refer to the substantive part of the Amendment, which appears in the Schedule.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House.

The Solicitor-General: These words enable us in the Schedule on page 60 of the Bill at the end of line 31 to insert the provision appearing on page 1916 of the Order Paper. The first paragraph of that provision deals with settlements which are for annual payments and the second paragraph deals with capital settlements. Paragraph I dealing with annual payments provides that in the case of revocable settlements of this kind made before the Budget date the provisions which are in the Bill should not in general apply provided that certain conditions are satisfied. Those conditions are (1) if the settlor has released his power of revocation at the expiration of three months from the Finance Bill becoming law, or (2) if he has already made continuous annual payments for at least seven years, or (3) if it has been revoked and a new settlement made for a total period exceeding six years; in other words, the person who has in fact acted upon the settlement as though it were a perfectly irrevocable one and has not derived any benefit for himself is now given the opportunity of putting the matter in order and making it for the future irrevocable so that he shall not be subjected to the penalties of the Clause. To put it another way the settlor having treated his settlement as being irrevocable is now given the opportunity of making it in law irrevocable and saving it from

the provisions of the Bill in regard to revocable settlements. Those are the provisions as regards the annual payment settlements.
As regards the capital settlements dealt with in paragraph 2 of the provision to be inserted in the Schedule, similar provisions are made provided that the settlor has released his power of revocation so that the settlement is in fact completely irrevocable and that he has not received any consideration in respect of his release. The concession does not extend to the type of accumulator case with which we have been dealing where accumulated interest may be charged if the income or funds of the settlement may revert to the settlor. An Amendment was put down to this effect on the Committee stage, but not moved, and we felt that different considerations obviously applied in that case.
By paragraph 3 there is the further condition that the concession shall not apply in the case of a settlement where since the beginning of 1937–38 the settlor has received any capital sum from the trustees of the settlement or any company connected with the settlement. Capital sum is later defined to include any sum which he obtains by way of loan or repayment. That is in order to see that nobody shall use what we characterise as tax-evading devices by which the settlor uses any provision of the settlement to get money back and pay no tax on it. Paragraph 4 is really explanatory, and paragraph 5 provides that in cases where the settlor has himself an unqualified power to revoke the concession under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply. What we feel in regard to these cases is that they are really not settlements at all. It is one thing to have a settlement in the case of a charity revocable in certain circumstances; for example, a settlement in favour of a parish which shall continue for seven years, but is revocable with the consent of somebody. That consent would normally be given if a particular incumbent left or the character of the religious practices changed. It is another thing where the settlor himself has power to revoke the settlement, and we do not think that is a proper case in which to give him power to put the matter right. Paragraph 6 provides that husband and wife are to be treated as one, and paragraph 7 provides that the years to which Part 11 applies are 1937–38 and 1938–39.
By these concessions the ordinary deeds for payment of charities as to poor relations will, we are satisfied, be properly safeguarded, and the promise that was given by my right hon. Friend to my lion. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) on the Committee stage will be fully implemented.

6.33 p.m.

Captain Sir William Brass: During the Committee stage my right hon. Friend promised that he would bring this suggestion forward as he did not accept the proviso which I suggested. He did not want to penalise any of the genuine cases, and I certainly did not want to encourage any tax evasions. I was only anxious that the genuine cases should be treated in the way in which my right hon. Friend has treated them, and I should like to thank him for what he has done. I am sure it will be felt all over the country that he has done the right thing and that all the genuine cases will be allowed to go on in the same way as they are at present, once they have made the deeds irrevocable.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Benson: This Amendment is an excellent answer to the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) on a previous Amendment, that we should proceed by giving a solemn warning that next year any particular settlement of an evasive character should be dealt with by retrospective legislation. Last year the Chancellor gave us a warning and in the Finance Bill the legislation was made retrospective for one year. Here, owing to pressure from the back benches, he is revoking that retrospective legislation and is giving a considerable and, I think, unwarranted concession. There are two effects of this Amendment and the Amendment to the Schedule. They will take out of charge to tax the Surtax income which will be due next year, and there are some considerable concessions in respect of the revocable seven-years' settlement. It is fair to say that every seven-year settlement that has a revocable clause in it is a bogus settlement.

Sir W. Brass: That is quite wrong.

Mr. Benson: It has been founded solely for the purpose of evading tax. A seven-year settlement of income which has a revocable clause in it is not a settlement;

it is merely an annual gift cast in the form of a settlement. The third-party clause in a settlement by which you must have the permission of a third party to break the settlement is no safeguard. In one of the cases brought by the Board of Inland Revenue on this point there was a settlement which could be broken by the consent of any third party. The judge put it to the Attorney-General that it meant that the settlor could go down the street asking one person after another whether they would agree to the revocation of his settlement, and as soon as he found some person who said, "Yes," that was an adequate and legal reason for breaking the settlement. When you make a settlement and you put in either some unspecified third party or a specified named party, you put it in in order that you may break the settlement and get rid of the binding clauses. The Chancellor in Committee referred to the instance given by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), who said:
I give the case of a wealthy man who was able to settle over £1,000 a year for a period of seven years on a certain number of charities. He did so by means of a revocable settlement not because of any desire to evade taxation but simply because his income was subject to fluctuations and as a prudent man he foresaw that it might not be possible for him to arrange his support of these charities for a considerable period ahead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1938; col. 1631, Vol. 337.]
The man referred to makes a seven years' trust and makes it revocable because he is never sure what his income will be. That is a bogus trust. He can break it any time he wants if he thinks his income is inadequate to give £1,000 to charity. What difference is there between that form of trust and an annual gift? There is none. What is the purpose of forming a trust of this kind which you can break at any time? The purpose is that if you cast your annual gift in the form of a seven-year trust you can set it against your income for tax purposes.
The concession which the Chancellor proposes to make is that anyone who has one of these revocable trusts, can, if he drops the revocable clause continue the trust for the broken period that is left of seven years. If it is a revocable trust having run for three years, by eliminating the revoking clause it will be allowed to continue as a valid trust for the next four years. That means that those trusts which have been formed


solely for the purpose of tax avoidance and where the revocability has not been exercised are to be allowed as valid trusts for the length of the period for which they were established. Let me give an example of two neighbours each of whom decide to give £100 a year to a given charity. One does it by an annual donation out of income which has borne tax, and the other does it under a seven years' trust which is revocable and which he can revoke by consent of any third party he likes to name with the exception of his wife. They have both paid for three years. Under the Amendment the man who has made the tax avoidance trust and who has collected tax back on his £100 can establish his trust for the next four years and still avoid tax. If the man who has paid on an annual basis and has paid full tax wants to establish a tax avoiding trust, he cannot do it under less than a seven-years' trust. In other words, the annual donor is penalised and the donor who has established a tax avoiding trust is put in a favourable position. We should not agree to legislation which gives a favour to people who have established trusts for the purpose of avoiding tax.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(Further provisions as to subsidiary companies.)

6.42 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: I beg to move, page 49, line 31, at the end, to insert:
and the time within which such a notice may be given in respect of any chargeable accounting period shall be extended to six months from the end of that period or such longer time as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may in any case allow.
This Amendment carries us to a part of the Bill which proposes some minor Amendments of the National Defence Contribution. This Amendment and the three which follow have to do with the period within which a claim must be made by a parent company to bring the affairs of a subsidiary company into the same accounting period with itself for purposes of National Defence Contribution. We had that provision in the original scheme of the tax, and as we enacted it last year we provided that the parent company must exercise its option within two months after the accounting period of the subsidiary company and must give notice within those two months

that it requires the profits and losses of the two concerns to be amalgamated for the purposes of the tax. Experience has shown that that is not a workable period. It may be two months after the end of the chargeable accounting period, but that is not the same thing as two months after the date when the accounts are made up, and many cases arose where the accounts of the subsidiary would not have been made up in time for this option to be exercised properly. This is a matter of machinery. It is not a question of giving anybody any advantage, except the advantage of having a time-table which is a workable and practicable one. The Amendments which follow are purely consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 50, line 11, leave out "two," and insert "six."

In line 12, after "Act," insert "or such longer time as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may in any case allow."

In line 17, leave out "two," and insert "six."— Sir J. Simon.]

CLAUSE 42.—(Estate Duty on cesser by death of a limited interest in unascer tained residue. 57 & 58 Vict. c. 30.)

6.47 P.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 52, line 35, at the end, to insert:
Provided that, in a case where that person died before the commencement of this Act and no estate duty was paid in respect of the cesser of that interest before the commencement of this Act, any question as to the operation of Part I of the Finance Act, 1894, in relation to his death shall be determined without regard to the provisions of this Section.
One of the subsidiary results of Clause 42 is that in certain cases the charge of Estate Duty on the specific assets representing a testator's estate would come within the operation of the Clause. As I explained on the Committee stage, that is a practice which has been in operation since 1894, but as the Clause stands at present—though not being its main object —it would deprive the subject of his rights in a particular case which is at the present moment under appeal in the House of Lords, where a particular point is being taken. If the Clause goes through as it stands the subject, in the middle of his litigation, is deprived of his rights, and


one or two other individuals whose cases are waiting the decision in that case would also be deprived of their rights. In order that there may be the utmost fairness shown by the Revenue towards the taxpayer, which is always the object, and to preserve those rights in the case that I have referred to, which I do not mention by name, and the other cases which are awaiting the result of that case, I move this Amendment.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I should like to ask when these cases arose. I am given to understand that this particular flaw in our legislation was only recently discovered and that the Government are hurrying to put it right before any litigation could appear. Have these cases arisen since the Finance Bill was published, or before?

The Solicitor-General: The case I referred to and the other cases have been going on for a long time, and, further than that, the point that we are saving here is a completely subsidiary point in the argument in that case. The point has already been decided against the litigant in the court of first instance and in the Court of Appeal, but at the present moment it is in the House of Lords. If Clause 42 is passed in its present form the point will not be open to him, but this Amendment will keep it open.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 44.—(Amendments as respects property transferred to, and shares in, certain companies.)

6.50 p.m.

Lord Ansley: I beg to move, in page 53, line 19, at the end, to insert:
Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply in any case where the transfer or transfers in respect of which the liability to Estate Duty arises under the provisions of the said Section thirty-five were made before the commencement of the said Act.
The reason why this Amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) and myself, is being moved on Report stage, is that when we discussed the matter on Committee stage and went fully into the arguments, which I do not propose to repeat to-night, there appeared to be some hesitation and difficulty on the Treasury Bench as to the exact difference between companies which came under

Clause 35 and those which came under Clause 34 of the Finance Act, 1930. The argument was that the Treasury were unable to grant the relief which was proposed by this Amendment on the ground that there might be some tax evasion. Both the cases which the Chancellor of the Exchequer then cited concerned companies which came under Clause 34, and our contention was that though there might possibly be some tax evasion in the case of Clause 34 there could not be any under Clause 35. These companies are all landed estate companies, all based on settlements. There are not very many of them and those that do exist are mostly of very old standing, and were in being long before the Finance Act, 1930, was passed. Indeed, there can be no question of there being any intention of tax evasion.
Those companies will be severely hit by the Clause in the present Finance Bill. We put forward the plea, also, that Lord Snowden gave the concession to non-aggregations of property in the Finance Act, 1930, and it cannot be contended that Lord Snowden was a great friend of landed proprietors. He was, indeed, a Whig of the old school, and therefore, to a certain extent, swayed by the political prejudices which hon. Members opposite sometimes seem to have inherited. Although the political situation to-day is very different from what it was in the days of the old Whig, their views are remarkably conservative and they find it hard to get rid of those old prejudices. I think that Lord Snowden did go into the question very thoroughly, and did say that the case of these companies was a hard case under Clause 35, and for that reason gave the concession. Therefore, we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go thoroughly into the point himself, as no doubt he has done, and tell us whether there is any reason why that relief which was given by Lord Snowden should not be maintained.
We consider that there will be this additional hardship. When those companies were formed they paid very heavy Stamp Duties to the Revenue, and that was possibly one of the reasons which swayed Lord Snowden when he decided to give relief to non-aggregated property. Having given that relief and allowed them to run for a number of years I think it would be hard suddenly to change the financial order again and take back what


had been given by a Labour Lord Chancellor. I would also urge the argument that the heavy burden which Death Duties are in the case of landed estates should not be overlooked from a Treasury point of view. If capital is taken away every few years, whenever there is a death, it will be correspondingly more difficult for owners to pay their Income Tax and Surtax under Schedule A, and the Treasury are bound to lose money. Owners have to sell portions of their estates in order to pay, and those portions come into the hands of small individuals who do not pay taxation at the same high rate of Surtax, and the Treasury are bound to lose. That argument ought to be considered by the Treasury, who should also compare the amount of revenue they lose from the same source when landed estates come under the State. When we get figures of these estates in the Estimates no account is taken of the Income Tax and Surtax which are lost to the Treasury or of the Death Duties which are lost. It might be equally well argued that when those companies are formed they were formed for tax evasion and the same in the case of co-operative estates.

Sir Sydney Wells: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to say a word in regard to the position of Lord Snowden, as the Noble Lord has referred to him. It is quite incorrect to say that Lord Snowden deliberately gave a concession to this particular form of company because he thought there was nothing unsuitable in a company being constructed in this way. The facts are entirely different. Before the passage of the Finance Act, 1930, no obstacle had been placed in the way of persons evading taxation by forming companies of this kind. A provision in the Act of 1930 was designed to stop that evasion, but when the draft came to be considered there was found to have been an error in the drafting and the provision did not completely meet the case. All that Lord Snowden did was not to rectify that error in the course of the passage of the Bill, and it was definitely stated by me on Third Reading that there might still be some means of evading direct taxation, but that what Lord Snowden had done, and what it was our intention by that Bill to do, was to put up a signpost saying that

if people evaded their due liabilities they would be dealt with when the time came. It is incorrect to say that Lord Snowden deliberately left this loophole for evading taxation. The Act of 1930 made a very great advance in stopping evasion, and it was hoped that it would be a warning to people not to use such methods in the future. Therefore, I support the proposal in the present Bill, and I am entirely against allowing those who have evaded taxation by means of the loophole left in the Act of 1930 being free to escape their due liabilities.

6.58 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: It was interesting to hear the account given by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) because he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the Finance Act, 1930, was carried through this House. I must say that I have found it rather difficult to understand why the Socialist Chancellor should have permitted Sub-section (3) of Section 35 to stand as it is, and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining it. As far as I am concerned, the matter stands in this way: That Section 35 deals with the formation of companies in the case of settled estates. I do not think my Noble Friend was right in saying that it is limited to agricultural estates. There might be a settlement of stocks and shares or of anything you please; as long as there is a settlement it comes under Section 35. The general arrangement in the case of a settlement was this—for simplicity's sake, I will take an agricultural settlement; that if there was a transfer of the different interests to an estate company formed for the purpose it was thought necessary to secure that the Revenue should be protected from loss of Estate Duty.
Of course, if the life tenant transfers his interest to a company and takes shares in consideration of his transfer, as he ordinarily would do, the shares in the company will belong to him and will pass on his death and they will be, broadly speaking, of the same value as the estate that he transfers. It will be as broad as it is long, and he will pay Estate Duty in respect of the shares which represent the land. It is only if arrangements are made for the transfer of his interest and the interest of the remainder that anything different will happen. It is


possible to imagine a case in which the life tenant instead of taking the shares is appointed by the company to be governing director at a salary equal to the annual revenue of the estate and the shares are allotted not to him but to the reversioner. If that is what happens since the annual salary which may be very substantial, necessarily dies with him when he dies Estate Duty no longer attaches as it would if he was passing over the land or the shares to his representatives.
The formation of estate companies may often be a businesslike way of managing agricultural property and we ought not to do anything to discourage it. There may be many good reasons why they should be formed, but that is really no reason why there should be a substantial avoidance or reduction of the Estate Duty. It is a mystery why in the Act of 1930 Lord Snowden said that in this particular case there should not be any aggregation of this property with the rest of the property of a man when he dies. It is an elementary principle in the working of Estate Duty that you bring together all the different properties which belonged to the deceased and pass at his death for the purpose of applying the proper rates of Estate Duty to them. For a reason which does not seem easy to discover, and which the right hon. Gentleman has explained was certainly not deliberate, in this case by a remarkable exception it was said that the property represented by the estate company should be dealt with as an estate by itself. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining the rather mysterious circumstances in which it happened, but I really think there is no sufficient reason why we should not apply the ordinary rule. The Government takes up this attitude through no desire at all to penalise the progressive management of agricultural estates. Undoubtedly everything should be done to encourage it. It is not, as far as I am concerned, that I do not appreciate the very heavy burdens that fall on agricultural owners. They certainly do, but I think our law on the matter must be consistent. I see no reason why we should have this very remarkable and almost unique exception on the Statute Book entirely contrary to the general principle of the law relating to Estate Duty.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Supplementary pro- visions as to settlements.)

Amendment made: In page 60, line 31, at the end, insert:

Orders of the Day — PART II.

Special provisions as respects settlements made before the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight.

1. Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Schedule, in the case of a settlement made before the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, Subsection (1) of the relative Section shall not, by reason only of the provisions of paragraph (a) thereof, apply to sums payable by the settlor by virtue or in consequence of any provision of the settlement in a year to which this Part of this Schedule applies, if—

(a) at the expiration of three months from the date of the passing of this Act—

(i) no person has or can have any such power as is referred to in the said paragraph (a) and
(ii) the settlor has not received and is not entitled to receive any consideration in respect of the release or disclaimer of any such power; or

(b) the like annual payments have been payable by the settlor by virtue or in consequence of that provision of the settlement in each of the seven years of the assessment ending with a year to which this Part of this Schedule applies; or
(c) before the expiration of three months from the date of the passing of this Act—

(i) the settlement, or the provision by virtue or in consequence whereof the annual payments are payable, has been revoked; and
(ii) a new settlement has been made by the settlor by virtue or in consequence whereof the settlor is liable to make the like annual payments and cannot, except in the event of his death, cease to he liable to make those payments before the expiration of six years from the date when the first of the annual payments payable by virtue or in consequence of the revoked settlement became payable:

Provided that where any income arising under the settlement in a year to which this Part of this Schedule applies has not been distributed, the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect as if there were substituted for the reference to sums payable by the settlor in that year a reference to the amount, if any, by which the sums so payable in that year exceed the income arising under the settlement in that year which has not been distributed.

2. Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Schedule, in the case of a settlement made before the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, income arising under the settlement in any year to which this Part of this Schedule applies which would, but for this paragraph, be treated by virtue of Sub-section (2) of the relative Section as the income of the settlor


and not as the income of any other person, shall not be so treated or, in a case where any income arising under the settlement in that year has not been distributed, shall not be so treated to the extent that it exceeds the amount of income arising under the settlement in that year which has not been distributed if, at the expiration of three months from the date of the passing of this Act—

(a) no person has or can have any such power as is referred to in the said Subsection (2); and
(b) the settlor has not received and is not entitled to receive any consideration in respect of the release or disclaimer of any such power.

3. The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule shall not apply to any settlement if, in any year to which this Part of this Schedule applies, any capital sum within the meaning of Section thirty-seven of this Act has been paid to the settler directly or indirectly by the trustees of the settlement or any body corporate connected with the settlement in that year.

4. Notwithstanding that the payments payable by virtue or in consequence of any such new settlement as is referred to in sub-paragraph (c) (ii) of paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule are payble to or applicable for the benefit of another person for a period which cannot exceed six years from the date when the settlement was made, they shall not be treated as the income of the settler by virtue of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section twenty of the Finance Act, 1922.

5. Paragraphs r and 2 of this Part of this Schedule shall not apply to any income which would have been treated as the income of the settlor for any purpose by virtue of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section twenty of the Finance Act, 1922, but for the provisions of this Act relating to that paragraph.

6. In this Part of this Schedule references to the settlor, except where that expression first occurs in paragraph 2, include references to the wife or husband of the settlor.

7. The years to which this Part of this Schedule applies are the year 1937–38 and the year 1938–39.—[Sir J. Simon.]

Orders of the Day — FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Miscellaneous enact ments repealed.)

Amendment made: In page 65, leave out lines 38 to 43.—[Sir J. Simon.]

Bill to be read the Third time upon Friday, and to he printed. [Bill 215.]

Orders of the Day — ANGLO-TURKISH (ARMAMENTS CREDIT) AGREEMENT BILL.

Again considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MILK (EXTENSION AND AMEND- MENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of period for Exchequer payments in connection with milk sold or used for manufacture.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.8 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I wish to ask a question appertaining to the recent increase in the price of liquid milk. Because of the absence of rain for a very short time grass was not growing at the normal rate and the cost of producing feeding stuffs increased. Application was, therefore, made by the Milk Marketing Board for an increase in the price of liquid milk, and the arbitrator awarded them 4d. a gallon for the month of July. That lifted it to the highest price for very many years. Distributors of milk in many cases have been making fairly nice profits out of their part of the bargain, and it was felt by a large number of people, in view of the very high cost of milk, that the distributors should bear some part of the increased price of 2S. 4d. It has been brought to my notice this very day from letters received that certain milk retailers would have been happy to bear a share of the increase and, instead of charging 7d. a quart, they would have continued to charge 6d. during July. They are in fear and trembling that they may lose many of their customers during this month and, when they are lost, it is always most difficult to get them back. Apparently the milk distributors have taken a decision on these lines, that only in an area where an absolutely unanimous decision has been taken by distributors can they sell their milk at less than 7d. a quart. Therefore a person who would be willing to sell at 6d. is obliged to charge 7d., although 6d. would be a paying proposition.
The House has not been ungenerous to the Milk Marketing Board nor to the distributors, because to the extent that it has subsidised production at all it has indirectly tended also to subsidise distribution. One would have thought that in the very extraordinary circumstances of July the Ministry might have consulted with


the Milk Marketing Board and with the large and small distributors and invited them not to impose this extra burden on consumers if the retailers could find it possible during this single month to carry on without imposing it. The biggest problem of the milk industry is its inability to sell the maximum quantity of liquid milk. To the extent that they fail to sell it they have to sell it to the factories at 6d. or 7d. a gallon. I think in any case they are doing themselves a bit of no good in imposing this further burden upon consumers when there are millions who are unable to buy the appropriate quantities at 2s. and 3s. a gallon. Although grass refused to grow at the normal rate during the drought period of May and June, the nourishment must have remained in the soil and, now that the rains have arrived, It will be available in July, August and onward, and I am wondering if at some future period, instead of increasing the price from 2S. to 2s. 4d., when dairy cattle are being fed for little or nothing at all, milk will come down from 2s. to is. 8d. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether or not he made representations in any way to the Milk Marketing Board and to general distributors to avoid this further imposition upon the poorest section of consumers.

7.14 P.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The question the hon. Member has raised is somewhat novel to me because, as he said, the facts on which he founded his question were only brought to his notice to-day. The matter to which he refers arises out of a term of the contract between the Milk Marketing Board, representing producers, and the Central Milk Distributive Committee; representing the purchasers, whereby it was agreed between both parties that the price might be varied when special circumstances arose which seriously affected the cost of production. This drought which the hon. Gentleman dismissed very lightly had the effect, the producers claim, of increasing the cost of production because they had to supplement the normal summer ration of cows by purchasing imported foodstuffs. Though, as the hon. Gentleman says, the nourishment may be in the ground, the farmer's problem is to get the nourishment from the ground to the cow, through the usual channels. In these special circumstances there was, under the contract agreed upon by both sides, a

procedure which is not within my scope at all and which arises out of stipulations entered into between the Milk Marketing Board and the buyers, represented by the committee I have mentioned.
As I have said, the question of which the hon. Member gave me notice is novel to me. I am as anxious as anyone can be to secure that milk shall be abundant and cheap to as many of our people as possible, consistent with a proper remuneration to the man who undertakes the labour and the risk, and I will undertake to examine the matter and to see whether there is anything which I can do. No doubt the hon. Member will remember that the problem of distribution, which is very important, is not provided for in this Measure and that there are proposals which we hope to bring before this House next Session. In the meantime I will examine the hon. Gentleman's suggestions further and see whether I can do anything.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Extension of period, and increase of amount, of Exchequer payments in connection with schemes for increasing the demand for milk.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: There is a point on which I should like a little information. The explanatory Memorandum is rather more explanatory than these Memoranda usually are. We are informed that the Act of 1934 permitted the Government to direct certain moneys towards the Milk Marketing Board for the purpose of popularising milk and increasing the demand for it, and that there was a limitation of £2,000,000. The Measure now before us is to extend the period during which such sums can be directed to the board, and there is a provision made for increasing the amount, with a restriction to £750,000. I would direct the attention of the Committee to the fifth annual general meeting of the registered producers, of which meeting I have the report here. I notice in the balance-sheet at the end of the report three items which are rather interesting. I see that the producers have put to their contract emergency


reserve the sum of £153,387, to capital reserve account £338,156, and to general reserve no less than £852,991; so that in the reserve accounts of the English Milk Marketing Board alone—I have no knowledge of the balance-sheet of the Scottish Board—there is a reserve of £1,344,534. I am wondering whether, in view of that fact, the Minister is content to ask the House to grant more money to the board. Is he satisfied that it is necessary to give this money and should it not be used for popularising the further consumption of milk?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The accounts of the Milk Marketing Board showing the balances to which the hon. Member has drawn attention are the concern of the producers themselves. If it were alleged that the board were keeping too much in reserve and distributing too little, that would be a matter between the board on the one hand and the producers, who are their constituents, on the other. The Clause deals, not with something which is purely a matter of interest to the producers of milk, but with certain schemes which are described as methods for increasing the demand for, and popularising the consumption of, milk, the best known of which are the milk-in-schools scheme and the scheme which was adumbrated in order to provide milk for nursing and expectant mothers and for children under school age. The whole community is interested in these matters, apart from the demand for milk, and they are matters in which the Milk Marketing Board should be assisted. The producers of milk should not be asked to bear the whole cost of these social services themselves, but should be assisted by Exchequer grants in order to make the schemes possible.
The Clause merely extends for another year the annual provision of £500,000, and adds another £250,000, because we are extending the schemes. We hope to extend them in the coming year to mothers and children and also to make certain improvements in the distribution of milk in schools. I do not think that the hon. Member can object to producers of milk putting their own money to reserve. The amount which is held in reserve may seem large when it is considered apart from the turnover which it represents, but the hon. Member should

remember that the Milk Marketing Board handle a turnover of from £50,000,000 to £60,000,000 a year, and no adequate criticism can be passed as to the prudence or otherwise of holding £1,000,000 in reserve without taking that into account. The Clause deals with Exchequer money for the beneficiaries of the scheme. It is a matter for which the community has some responsibility and is not one to be shouldered altogether by the producers of milk in this country.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Release of milk marketing boards and Government of Northern Ireland from obligation to make payments to Exchequer.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: I would like to raise another small point upon this Clause, in which it is proposed to relieve the boards from liability. I wonder whether we might be advised as to the total sum already paid under this heading by the Government and the amount of liability of the Exchequer still outstanding.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: This Clause implements the promise made in the White Paper of last July. For the months of June, July and August, 1937, the boards will have to make repayments totaling £133,000. A further sum would have to be repaid in respect of some early months of this year if the boards were not relieved of their liability, but the total amount that might have become repayable would depend upon the future course of prices. This question is linked up with an alteration in the form of assistance given to the milk marketing boards in respect of manufacturing milk. Prior to the proposed new milk legislation, the assistance was given by way of repayable advances, but the White Paper proposed, instead of repayable advances, a price insurance scheme upon a different arithmetical and accounting basis. This Clause enables the transition from one scheme to the other to be carried through without complicated accounting and should be regarded as related to the change-over from one kind of insurance scheme to the other.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAR DEPARTMENT PROPERTY BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

7.27 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very small and short Bill, and I think I can explain it to the House in a very few sentences. It is designed to relieve the Secretary of State for War of the duty which he has at present of having personally to sign documents in connection with the acquisition, management and disposal of land or property in respect of which he is expressed to be a party. Under this Bill such documents will be executed by the Under-Secretary of State or any other person whom the Secretary of State may depute. Neither the First Lord of the Admiralty nor the Secretary of State for Air is personally required to sign documents of this character. The First Lord of the Admiralty has enjoyed this relief for some time; the Secretary of State for Air was given the relief under Section 26 (4) of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, on which Act the provisions of this Bill are based.
Perhaps I might remind the House that during the passage of the Air Navigation Bill no objection was taken to this proposal, and in the circumstances I do not think it will be unfair of me to claim that the Bill is non-controversial. There is nothing in the Bill which increases or diminishes the powers of the Secretary of State for War with respect to the acquisition or disposal of War Department land, or the rights of any interested parties in those undertakings. It is merely a matter of convenience. During the last four years, the number of these documents which the Secretary of State has had to sign has steadily increased, as is only natural having regard to the extension of activity which has taken place in all the Service Departments. As a matter of fact, during the first six months of this year the number of these documents

requiring his personal signature has exceeded the yearly average previous to 1937. There is some delay, or danger of delay or inconvenience under the present system. If for any reason the Secretary of State is not available, either through sickness or by reason of being on a short holiday these documents have to be held up. Once the Bill is on the Statute Book, all such delays in future will be obviated. I hope that in the circumstances the House will agree to pass the Bill without discussion.

Mr. Davidson: Does the procedure now suggested mean that these documents which had to be signed by the Secretary of State himself in the past can now be signed by someone else without his sanction or knowledge; or will it be necessary to submit them for his approval before they are signed?

Sir V. Warrender: Under this procedure, whoever is authorised by the Secretary of State to sign, will do so on his behalf. There are many other occasions on which action is taken on behalf of the Secretary of State without his personal instructions, and in all these cases any formal objections or other matters that might be raised on behalf of interested parties will have been agreed to and settled before the actual signature takes place.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Bill will not increase or decrease the powers of the Secretary of State over land or property in the hands of the War Department, but is there not a possibility that it will increase very considerably his present extensive powers?

Sir V. Warrender: I do not know what the hon. Member has in mind. I can assure him that this is purely a question of machinery which in no way affects either the rights of any citizen of this country or the powers of the Secretary of State.

7.33 P.m.

Mr. Davidson: I am perfectly satisfied with the reply that the hon. Gentleman has given to me, and I should like to say that personally I welcome this Measure. Any relief from ordinary routine duties that can be afforded to the Secretary of


State for War will, I am sure, be welcomed by many Members of the House who have been entirely dissatisfied in the past with his inadequate treatment of our questions.

7.34 P.m.

Sir H. Seely: Personally I agree with the Bill. I quite understand that the Secretary of State has had a great deal to do in signing these various documents, which might easily be signed by other people. I do not think, however, that this case can quite be compared with that of the Admiralty, because the War Office has had rights for a very long time over a great deal of land. In fact, I myself, in the Isle of Wight, am very interested in several matters which arise where the War Department have interests which run parallel to mine. Those interests, which they acquired about the year 1805, interfere a great deal with the landlords who are there now. When one has had difficulties, as one always has, with a landlord who has no longer any use for his land, but who nevertheless has rights over it, as the War Office have in many parts of the country, hitherto one has been able to get the attention of the Secretary of State himself in dealing with these matters, and he was able to take action which perhaps could not have been taken by an Under-Secretary or someone else who might be deputed to sign the documents. I hope that this Bill will not mean that the same interest will not be taken in future as has been taken in the past by the Secretary of State in these problems.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Captain Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD HAULAGE WAGES (No. 2) BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Functions of Central Board and of area boards.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 27, leave out "their," and insert "its."

7.36 P.m

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the following one are purely drafting Amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 3, line 39, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 41, at the end, insert:
(4) In framing proposals for fixing remuneration under this Part of this Act in respect of any work, the board shall take into consideration any decision of a joint industrial council, conciliation hoard or other similar body relating to the remuneration of workers employed on road haulage work which may be brought to the notice of the board.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment authorises the board to take into consideration any decision of the Joint Industrial Council, but does not oblige the board to accept such decision.

7.39 P.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what body he visualises as likely to have any effect on the Central Board which governs the conduct of the A and B licence holders? Does the Amendment mean that the board must work backwards and give consideration to the Conciliation Board's agreements with regard to the C licence holders, in whose case wages are notoriously low? If that be so, I think it would be wrong to accept the Amendment. On the other hand, it seems to me that, since the Central Board is to be the only body competent to deal with the A and B licence holders, there can really be no other body-which the board can consult or take cognisance of. If we are going to permit extraneous organisations arising from the area boards to run side by side with the Central Board, I think we shall wreck the good work that was done on the Bill in this House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Some of those arguments would have relevance if there were an obligation on the board to listen to recommendations which have been made in the past by the Joint Industrial Council, but there is no such obligation. The new Sub-section merely authorises them to do so, and, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, it has been more or less agreed by the unions interested.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: Would the new Subsection allow the Area Board that is to be established in Scotland to take into consideration representations from the Scottish Horse and Motormen's Association, a trade union which has been established in Scotland for many years, and which has itself set up very efficient machinery to deal with wages and conditions in Scotland?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The new Sub-section deals only with the Central Board.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 6, line 31, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Power of Industrial Court to fix statutory remuneration.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 8, after "employer," insert:
or an organisation of employers of which he is a member.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment carries out an undertaking given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) to look into the matter. It enables the C licence holder to leave the matter of applying for a review of the decision of the Industrial Court in the hands of his own organisation.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Does this mean that the individual employer is to get no locus at all? What will happen if he is not a member of any organisation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It enables either the individual employer or the organisation representing him to make the application.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I should like to thank the Government for the insertion

of this Amendment. It is one of the points that I pressed during the Committee stage.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Duty to pay statutory remuneration.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 37, leave out, "in the foregoing Sub-section," and insert:
For the purposes of the last foregoing Sub-section the net remuneration obtainable by a worker in respect of any work after allowing for his necessary expenditure, if any, in connection with the work shall be deemed to be the remuneration paid to him and.

7.44 P.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is for the purpose of making it clear that the net remuneration received by a road haulage worker shall be arrived at after allowing for any necessary expenses incurred by the worker.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 10, line 34, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Remedies for default).

Lords Amendment: In page II, line 35, at the end, insert:
(8) If any person is convicted under Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, of using a goods vehicle for a purpose for which an A licence, a B licence or a C licence is required, otherwise than under such a licence, any road haulage work performed by a road haulage worker in connection with the vehicle while it was being so used shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been road haulage work in connection with a goods vehicle specified in an A licence, a B licence or a C licence granted under that Act, as the case may be, and the provisions of this and of the last foregoing Section shall apply accordingly.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of the Amendment is to prevent any person who unlawfully uses a goods vehicle from escaping altogether the obligations which would fall upon him if the vehicle had been lawfully used. It will cover the case of those persons who have no licence but ought to have


one, or who drive a vehicle with a wrong licence.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 16, line 36, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE (Constitution and Pro ceedings of Road Haulage Wages Boards).

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 10, after "formed," insert:
or if thereafter such a quorum ceases to be present.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of the Amendment is to prevent proceedings being held up by the absence of members of the board who have attended at the beginning of the meeting and withdrawn during the course of the meeting.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE (Definitions of Road Haulage Worker and Road Haulage Work).

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 15, after "waiting" insert "whether over-night or otherwise."
This is a purely precautionary Amendment, to make it quite clear that subsistence allowance will be paid for waiting periods away from home, whether overnight or otherwise.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 19, after "Board," insert "and with such organisations of employers and workers as he thinks proper."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I would like some further elucidation of this. I entirely agree with the Amendment, but I would like to know how far it extends. The Scottish Horse and Motormen's Association, as a trade union, have conducted negotiations for the Scottish road haulage workers for many years, and they have felt for a considerable time that this Bill was taking away some of their hard-won rights with regard to Scottish affairs. Will the Central Board, when discussing

questions affecting Scottish conditions, do it through the area board; and will the viewpoint of that association be taken into consideration?

7.49 P.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is, of course, the intention that the Central Board, and indeed the area boards, shall consult with all organisations which have profitable contributions to make. I have no doubt that the organisation to which the hon. Member has referred is of such a nature. This Amendment is designed to bring "C" licence holders within the scope of the third paragraph of the Third Schedule. The Third Schedule defines the scope of Part I and Part II of the Bill. The Central Board is concerned only with Part I, but as "C" licence holders will also be concerned it is thought desirable to bring them in.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NAVAL DISCIPLINE (AMENDMENT) BILL.

As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to label.)

7.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after "use," to insert "without any material variation."
This Amendment is intended to meet the point raised on behalf of a number of manufacturers. Sub-section (2) as drafted, following the existing law, is in effect an exemption for labels continuously in use since certain specified dates. It has been pointed out that if the words "continuously in use" are interpreted strictly it would prevent a manufacturer from altering the labels in the most trivial way—for instance, by adding a replica of a new medal which his product has secured.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: On behalf of the printing industry, which does not want to see archaic designs perpetuated for ever, I thank my hon. Friend for putting this Amendment down.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 57.—(Licensing of slaughter houses and knackers' yards.)

Amendment made: In page 43, hue 32, leave out "particular" and insert "respect."—[Mr. Bernays.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I suggest that the Minister should elucidate this Clause for our benefit, and explain the effect of the changes that are made.

Mr. Bernays: I assure the hon. Member that there are no material changes.

Mr. Marshall: Is it not a fact that registered slaughter-houses now become licensed under the Bill? That makes a very definite change, and affects local authorities particularly.

Mr. Bernays: No substantial change is effected.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 58 to 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 61.—(Elimination of private slaughter-houses.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: It appears to me that this Clause brings within the scope of compensation slaughter-houses which have never hitherto been subject to compensation. As I understand the present position it is this: A local authority builds a new abattoir, and there is necessarily a reduction in the number of private slaughter-houses. They usually find that those slaughter-houses are divided into two classes—registered, in respect of which compensation is not

payable, and licensed in respect of which compensation is payable. Clause 57 appears to convert registered slaughterhouses into licensed slaughter-houses. That is a serious thing for local authorities attempting the building of new abattoirs. A large local authority which is going to build a new abattoir, in the interests of public health, is to be subject to all sorts of regulations. It is very rarely that a local authority, having built such a slaughter-house, can make a profit out of it. I think that, as a rule, it entails a loss on the slaughtering section of that particular slaughter-house. One can imagine the consternation if there is to be an additional expense put on local authorities now to compensate slaughterhouses which have hitherto not been subject to compensation.

7.58 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I would like to say a word in reply to what the hon. Member has said. Where part of their livelihood is to be taken away from some of the slaughterers, because alternative slaughtering is being provided by the municipality, is it suggested that, because the municipality wants to make a profit, the private slaughterer is not to have compensation? I hope the Minister will allow compensation under the Clause, arid not steal from these private slaughterers their means of livelihood.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would point out, in answer to the last speaker, that there has been a vested interest which local authorities have been compelled to buy out when building abattoirs in the past—that is, the registered slaughter-houses, which could not be closed. Other slaughter-houses have existed on licence from the local authorities, on the understanding that the licence was granted from year to year, and on condition that it could either be granted or withheld as the local authority so determined. The fact that under such conditions a slaughterer has gone on with his work, surely does not entitle him to compensation in the event of the local authority seeking to have that slaughtering carried out by more hygienic and up-to-date methods. If this Bill does incidentally convert what has hitherto been a yearly licence into a licence lasting for all time and consequently adds considerably to its value, it is a point which needs looking into.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: The position has become clearer to the House after the discussion which has taken place. The local authority used to have power previously to refuse to grant a licence, but if it refused to grant a licence there was an appeal to the court of summary jurisdiction. This Clause, it is true, makes a change in the law; it gives a local authority an additional power to pass a resolution allowing an appeal to the Minister, after which no more slaughter-house licences can be granted, and, of course, compensation can be given. It is a convenience to all concerned. Previously, the local authority had only power to stop a licence. Under the Bill the local authority has not only power not to continue the individual licence, but in that alternative case there is a condition under which compensation can be given, and an appeal will lie with the Minister. That has been found convenient in local Acts and it is now being laid down in a general Act. I think that explanation meets the case.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has grasped the significance of this matter. The Clause deals with the elimination of slaughterhouses. The wholesale elimination of private slaughter-houses comes about only when a local authority contemplates building a new abattoir. I could give the Minister actual chapter and verse where the local authorities have had to face this position. When I say that they have had to pay in compensation sums ranging from £10,000 to £20,000, and even more, I think the Minister will realise that it is a very serious matter. In 1890 there was a certain Act passed which said in effect that all slaughterhouses built before that date would be regarded as registered slaughter-houses. Any slaughter-house built after that date was to be a licensed slaughter-house for which no compensation would be payable. In short, these slaughter-houses were built at the owners' risk and were subject to a yearly licence. The Minister is bringing these licensed slaughterhouses, of which there are a very great many, under this Clause, and local authorities will have to close them if they want to build abattoirs, and pay compensation. He has brought that class of slaughter-house within the scope of compensation. The right hon. Gentleman

is interested in the Livestock Industry Act and knows how eager the Government are to get this thing going, and he understands, or he should understand, that the difficulties of local authorities are very serious. The Government are now going to put this extra burden on them and ask them to compensate slaughterhouses which hitherto have not come within the scope of compensation. This is a very serious matter.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Muff: I would remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) is the spokesman for every market and municipal authority north of the Trent, including Birkenhead, and this Committee ought to give very careful attention to the plea which he has put forward. In listening to the Minister of Health, I have not been able to grasp what will really happen under the Clause now under discussion. There is a long history behind this business of the so-called registered slaughterhouse. For many years the municipal authorities have been carrying on a fight, backed by successive Ministers of Health, to see to it that all cattle slaughtered within their authority should not only be slaughtered on hygienic and humane lines, but that the cattle itself should be in such a condition as to be fit for human food. I was hoping that the Minister would be able to announce that the day has gone by when a dead cow, for instance, which has died of some disease, can be transported secretly in order to be prepared for human consumption. Not only dead cattle but live cattle have been brought to some of these slaughterhouses, and because there was no adequate inspection there has been placed upon the market food which was hardly fit for human consumption.
I would make a further appeal to the Minister of Health to elucidate the position. The hon. Member for Brightside knows what he is talking about here. I believe that there are about 48 municipalities represented on the Northern Markets Association. There were 48 or about that number when I sat upon it, and there have been additions since, including, I believe, the second city of the Empire, Glasgow itself. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us a little more light and leading on this Clause, so that we may pass it without having at the back of our minds that an injustice is being


done not so much to corporations like Birkenhead, but progressive and up-to-date corporations which provide abattoirs in order to guarantee that the people shall have sound meat purveyed and brought to their tables.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I think that the Minister fails to appreciate that the apprehension felt on this side of the Committee is very real, that the Clause will operate very vitally against the interests of small local authorities. Whereas in the larger local authorities there is a certain centralisation, even under private ownership, of the slaughtering of animals, in the smaller local authorities there are a large number of registered slaughter-houses which have never had any guarantee of continuity of tenure and have always functioned from year to year, relying on the renewal of the licence. Yet this Clause would seem to put them into the same category as other slaughter-houses and make them eligible for the same measure of compensation as is available for other slaughter-houses. I do not think that it is the desire of any hon. Member on this side of the Committee to inflict injustice on anyone engaged in this occupation, but in this Clause it is proposed not only to compensate those occupying the premises, but it places a dual responsibility for compensation to be paid to the owner as well as to the occupier. Some of these premises are fit for no other purpose, and they ought to have been pulled down many years ago. In many cases they function up little back alleys where the animals are taken and slaughtered. It is proposed to attach to property of this type a value which could not have been used for any other purpose, and to enable compensation to be paid to the owner of the property and also to the occupier of the premises.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: If the slaughter-houses are as bad as all that, what do the progressive municipalities mean by licensing them?

Mr. Poole: The position is that from time to time authorities do license these places, but hand-in-hand with that also goes the fact that every progressive authority in the country is seizing in these places tons upon tons of bad and diseased meat every half-year or quarter. In my own borough we average 25 tons per quarter of diseased meat which is seized

in slaughter-houses in the borough. How much gets through without the food inspector seeing it and finds its way on Sundays on to the dinner table of people who can afford to purchase only cheap meat is a matter which must be left to the assumption of the Committee. My point is that these premises cannot be used for any other purpose. They are suitable to be used only for this purpose. They must come within the by-laws of the local authority, otherwise the local authority would not continue the licence. Those who occupy them know full well that they do so only to the end of the year, when they are at the mercy of the local authority and have no guarantee that they will obtain a renewal of the licence. Yet it is proposed to place them in the same category as those who have had a registered slaughter-house for many years, and they are to rank for compensation. That is causingapprehension on the part of hon. Members on this side of the Committee.

8.12 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Poole) may be under a little misapprehension as to how this Consolidation Bill arose. It arose from the desirability and necessity of consolidating the Statutes from time to time. In a Consolidation Bill the very minimum amount of new matter is introduced. That new matter, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bright-side (Mr. Marshall) will confirm, is the subject of very careful examination by the Departmental Committee which is set up for the purpose. The Departmental Committee was set up for this particular purpose by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and it has considered the matter ever since. On that Committee were not merely members representing all sections of opinion in the House, but also representatives of all associations of local authorities, and, I would inform the hon. Member for Brightside, that all the four associations of local authorities were, in fact, on the Committee which framed and drafted this Clause. With all respect to the market authorities, for which the hon. Gentleman has so great a knowledge, nothing is being done against the interests either of local authorities or market authorities in this Clause, in so far as it was drafted by a Committee set up by


the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, and which had upon it representatives of all local authorities. Therefore, I think that there is a prima facie case in favour of this Clause being inserted.
As for the fears expressed by hon. Members, notably the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff), that this was making more difficult the changeover from privately-owned to municipally-owned slaughterhouses, if that was so, I do not think the associations of local authorities would have agreed to it. This provision has been sought by many progressive corporations in private Acts, and it does not make the position any more difficult. Under this Clause compensation can properly be asked for and paid, but only paid if it is decided that it is just. It is a Clause which has had very long and careful examination both by the Departmental Committee, and by the Joint Committee which thereafter examined it and called 22 witnesses. I hope that after this explanation the Committee will see fit to let us have the Clause.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I do not want to go on with the discussion, but I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. I do not think that he has appreciated the burden which is being cast on local authorities by this Clause. I can appreciate the desire of the Department for uni-

Division No. 296.]
AYES.
[8.16 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammelsmith, S.)
Foot, D. M.


Agnew, Lieul.-Comdr. P. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Furness, S. N.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Aska, Sir R. W.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Gluckstein, L. H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Beit, Sir A. L.
De Chair, S. S.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Bernays, R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Denville, Alfred
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bossom, A. C.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dodd, J. S.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Brats, Sir W.
Doland, G. F.
Hambro, A. V.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Drewe, C.
Hannah, I. C.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Bull, B. B.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Harbord, A.


Butcher, H. W.
Eckersley P. T.
Harvey, Sir G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Channon, H.
Ellis, Sir G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Emery, J. F.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Christie, J. A.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Hepworth, J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Cclfox, Major W. P.
Everard, W. L.
Higgs, W. F.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Fildes, Sir H.
Holdsworth, H.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fleming, E. L.
Holmes, J. S.

formity as far as the classification of slaughterhouses is concerned. They are bringing them under one classification as licensed slaughterhouses, but behind that they are bringing into the area of compensation a very great many slaughterhouses which hitherto have not been in that category. From that point of view the Minister of Health is doing an injury to the ideal that he has in sight, namely, to establish reasonable slaughterhouses all over the country.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: May I call the attention of the hon. Member to Clause 57 (7), which we have just passed, which makes it clear that
a licence under this Section shall remain in force for such period not exceeding 13 months as may be fixed by the local authority, but may from time to time be renewed by them for a period not exceeding 13 months at any one time.
Therefore, the effect is to tighten the law by making all licences annual and not renewable unless the local authorities are satisfied.

Mr. Marshall: That may be so, but there is a Clause which prevents the local authority from closing them if they have been used as slaughterhouses.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 115.

Hopkinson, A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Selley, H. R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Moreing, A. C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Hunloke, H. P.
Morgan, R. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Hunter, T.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hutchinson, G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Munro, P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Owen, Major G
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Kimball, L.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Petherick, M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Latham, Sir P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Turton, R. H.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wakefield, W. W.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Radford, E. A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lewis, O.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Liddall, W. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Lindsay, K. M.
Remer, J. R.
White, H. Graham


Lloyd, G. W.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wise, A. R.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Withers, Sir J. J.


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbrldge)
Wragg, H.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rowlands, G.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.



Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Salt, E. W.
Captain Dugdale and Major


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Harvie Watt.


Markham, S. F.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whltechapel)
Oliver, G. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Paling, W.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Parker, J.


Barr, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Batey, J.
Hayday, A.
Pearson, A.


Benson, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Poole, C. C.


Bromfield, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefraet)
Pritt, D. N.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hollins, A.
Ridley, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jagger, J.
Riley, B.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cape, T.
John, W,
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton. T. M.


Chater, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Dalton, H.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghl'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lee, F.
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGovern, J.
Viant, S. P.


Gallacher, W.
Marklew, E.
Walkden, A. G.


Gardner. B. W.
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths. J. (Llanelly)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.



Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 63.—(Saving for Port of London Authority and Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I should like the Minister to explain why the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. If they are not to be subject to inspection by the municipal authorities may we know who is to inspect


these two places under the Diseases of Animals Acts? I think it is about time that bodies which receive powers and charters should come under the inspection of municipal authorities when it is a case of seeing that food and meat are sent out in a condition fit for human consumption. There are too many of these bodies outside the regulations of municipal authorities, and it is not good that they should be in this privileged position. It has been the practice to hear representatives of certain companies say that they do not speak for their constituency but for the particular undertaking in which they are financially interested. I hope that day has gone, and I hope that bodies like the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board will be placed directly under the control of the municipal authority.

8.28 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I hasten to say before addresing myself to this Clause that I have no financial interest whatever in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board or in the Port of London Authority. I am interested in this matter as one of the representatives of Birkenhead, which has a landing for cattle coming from Ireland. The inspectors of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture are thick upon the ground. The amount of inspection which the cattle undergo is tremendous, and the inspectors sometimes are not able to agree as to the age of the animal or its condition. There is no danger whatever of cattle coming in which are unfit for human consumption, the inspection is so considerable. Obviously, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is not aware of the conditions. There is no danger whatever as every precaution which can he taken is taken by the Government Departments.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I happen to be a member of the Joint Select Committee which included the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) and the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) who, I am sorry, are not here to explain to hon. Members opposite the real position. As the Bill was before the Joint Select Committee the Port of London Authority was not included, and it was at my suggestion that it was included in the Bill. The reasons for it are these. We asked the question

which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has asked—why the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board should require special permission to be outside the control of the local authorities, and it is in the evidence given on the second day that hon. Members will find the reason. Mr. Horner appeared for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and it was his evidence which convinced the Joint Select Committee, including the hon. Members opposite, that it was justified. Perhaps I may be allowed to read the evidence as it will completely satisfy the hon. Member for Rochdale:
The Birkenhead Corporation Act has a specific exemption in favour of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and so far as bylaws are concerned, the Birkenhead Corporation I do not think have ever sought to enforce by-laws in their borough with reference to slaughter-houses, and the Wallasey bylaws contain a specific exemption for the Merseyside Board. The Merseyside Board appreciate that that is not the reason why they should continue to be exempted but they would like me to point out to you that whereas they are not at present subject to the licensing provisions or the by-law provisions in Birkenhead or Wallasey, they are, nevertheless, subject to very stringent control by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The premises at which cattle are landed in the port of Liverpool comprise what is known as the Mersey Cattle Wharf. This consists of one or more landing stages, which are connected to very extensive lairages, and in connection with these lairages the board have a number of slaughter-houses and knackers' yards. By orders made by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Diseases of Animals Acts this wharf has been appointed a wharf for the landing of foreign animals. It has also been appointed an approved landing place for the Canadian cattle by an order of the Ministry in 1933, and it has also been appointed an approved landing place for the importation of animals from Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. That means that these premises can only be carried on in accordance with the requirements of these orders, and I think I am right in saying that the requirements of these orders covers all the points in the bylaws which the local authorities would make and, in fact, they cover additional points as well. That really deals more with live animals, but so far as slaughter-houses are concerned the board must comply with the requirements of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. If they do not the Ministry can withhold their approval for these premises to be used under this Act. So that so far as the supervision and control is concerned the board submit that they are under possibly more stringent supervision than they would be if they were under the local authority. So far as the local authority is concerned the medical officers of health of both local authorities and their meat and sanitary inspectors have constant access to the premises so that


they can see that the requirements of the Public Health Meat Regulation, 1924, and the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, are complied with. So that in effect both local authorities have access to these premises. The board's contention is that if the local authorities here are to have power to license these premises and to make by-laws relating to the premises you will get an undesirable overlapping of jurisdiction.
That is the evidence on which the Joint Select Committee were convinced that as far as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was concerned they had proved their case and that no alteration of the present law, which has worked with great success for many years, was desirable. I will now quote my own remarks on that occasion:
The witness seems to have made such an extremely good case out, not only for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, but in regard to every other port, that it strikes me that we might have somebody from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to find out whether the saving with regard to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board might not be carried in general terms to all ports.
On another day, we had further information which showed that only in Liverpool and London was there any considerable amount of landings of cattle from foreign countries and slaughtering, and on those grounds it was considered desirable to include the Port of London Authority. For these reasons, I think this Clause is justified.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I think the Debate on this Clause proves the merits of the procedure that was adopted with regard to this Bill. The procedure of examination before the Select Committee, where a full discussion could take place, and hon. Members of all parties, including the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) could take part—a procedure which has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan)—amply supports the case for these exemptions. My hon. Friend explained to the House what the saving is, and why that saving, after very full consideration, was incorporated in the Clause.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Poole: Are we to understand that the Port of London Authority made no application for the exemption which is given in the Bill? We accept the explanation as far as the Mersey Docks and

Harbour Board are concerned, but why has it been given to the Port of London Authority? If the Port of London Authority desired these powers and thought that the lack of an exemption would cause any hardship, we know that they would be the first authority to make an application. It seems to me that the exemption is being foisted on to an authority which has never asked for it.

Mr. Elliot: I am advised that both bodies were represented before the Select Committee, and satisfied the Committee.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: It seems to me that the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan), having discovered that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board were being given this exemption, did not like the Lancashire and Cheshire people to have it without the Port of London Authority also having it. Surely, it is time that, instead of this duplication of examination, we should have one method of examination for all cattle, whether it is landed at the ports and slaughtered there, or whether it is slaughtered in other places in the country. In this matter, the closest investigation is required. From the little responsibility which I have had in regard to cattle in different parts of the country, I know that it is often the case that an animal which before slaughtering no one would have dreamed of suggesting was unfit, has been found, after slaughtering, to be such that the authority would not allow it to be used for human consumption.
I think that instead of there being this duplication of inspection and investigation, the local authorities should be responsible to us and to the people in their areas for seeing that there is the utmost purity in food. I am sorry that a London Member should have followed the bad old practice of getting certain authorities exempted in this way and that he should have brought the Port of London Authority into it. I hope that we shall soon come to an end of that sort of thing. In the past railways and other bodies have claimed exemptions from all sorts of things in order that they might do as they liked without having any regard for the local authorities. I feel that this exemption ought not to be given at this time, despite the constitution of the Select Committee.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: In my opinion, the strongest point which came out in the evidence was that by leaving the Bill as it now is, there will be an avoidance of duplication. If the local authorities were given jurisdiction, there would be concurrent and overlapping jurisdiction. As a London Member, I do not want to have that, in the interests of efficiency in local administration.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 64 to 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 101.—(Repeals and construction of references.)

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I beg to move, in page 78, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(3) In so far as any provision in an order or regulation made under any enactment repealed by this Act could have been made under a corresponding enactment in this Act, or, in the case of a provision in a Milk and Dairies Order, under an enactment in this Act relating to Milk and Dairies Regulations, it shall not be invalidated by this repeal, but shall have effect as if it had been made under that corresponding, or other, enactment in this Act, and may be amended, varied, revoked or enforced accordingly, and any person who is guilty of a contravention of, or non-compliance with, any such provision shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
This Amendment, and the next two Amendments on the Order Paper, are little more than drafting Amendments. The Clause which they seek to amend is the Repeal Clause of the Bill, and it contains the usual transitional provisions which keep alive Regulations, Orders and the like, made under preceding Acts, pending the making of fresh ones under this Bill, when it becomes an Act. The effect of the three Amendments is to make it clearer than at present, first, that the existing Milk and Dairies Order will be kept alive, and secondly, that the usual power of amending and revoking these Regulations, Orders and the like is maintained. The first Amendment also provides, as a transitional measure, that the penalties laid down by the Bill in Clause 79 will apply to breaches of existing Orders and Regulations. I hope that with that explanation, the House will accept the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 79, line 3, leave out "order, bylaw or regulation," and insert "or bylaw."

In line 14, at end, insert "and may be amended, carried, revoked or enforced accordingly."—[Mr. Bernays.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 102 and 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First, Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FOURTH SCHEDULE.

8.44 P.m.

Mr. Bernays: I beg to move, in page 87, line 9, column 3, at the end, to insert "outside London."
This Amendment is simply to correct a printing error, the Amendment accepted in another place having been inserted in the wrong line.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 87, line 11, column 3, leave out "outside London."

In column 3, leave out lines 27 to 29, and insert "The whole Act."

In page 88, column 3, leave out line 26, and insert "Section six (except Subsections (2) and (7); Sections twelve, twenty, and twenty-three;".—[Mr. Bernays.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill."

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I notice that reference is made here to Northern Ireland and to another important place, namely, the Isle of Man. I wish to ask whether consultation has taken place with the representatives of Northern Ireland and of the Isle of Man and whether they have agreed with the Home Office on this Measure as it is now presented to us. If they have not been consulted, or if they have not agreed, I wish to know why this Measure is being forced upon them. I hope that greater regard will be paid to the Island in connection with these matters in the future, than seems to have been paid to it up to the present.

Mr. Bernays: The hon. Member will, I am sure, be delighted to know that it has been arranged that there will be full consultation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — DIVORCE AND NULLITY OF MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE I.—(Additional grounds of divorce.)

8.47 P.m.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page I, to leave out line 15.
This Amendment seeks to delete from the list of additional grounds for divorce provided for in the Bill the ground of incurable insanity. The other grounds for divorce provided for in the Bill all arise from causes over which one or other of the parties to the marriage had control or could have avoided. Insanity is a disease. Where other diseases attack the human frame, it attacks the mind and it is something over which no one has any control. It may even be the case that the insanity of a wife or husband has been caused by the cruelty or by some other action of the other party to the marriage. Thus, under the proposal in this Bill, it would be possible for a married person who had driven his or her partner insane, to make that a ground for seeking divorce. On principle, I cannot agree to that proposition. There are arguments in favour of the other additional grounds for divorce proposed in the Bill, and for breaking a marriage bond which has not been faithfully kept by both parties, but those arguments do not apply to insanity. In the Bill we have a definition of incurable insanity. A person who has been for a period of five years continuously under care and treatment as an insane person is to be held to be "incurably insane."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I should point out to the hon. Member that there are subsequent Amendments on the Paper dealing with this point. I do not know whether the House would regard it as convenient to have a general discussion now on the question of insanity, on the understanding that in that case hon. Members who have put down other Amendments on the subject would formally move their Amendments in order to take the decision of the House upon them, or whether the House would prefer to discuss each Amendment in turn. In that case we cannot have on this Amendment a discussion covering points which will be raised in subsequent Amendments. I am in the hands of the House.

Mr. Westwood: I think it would be advisable to have a general discussion now as there are other Amendments on the Paper dealing with similar point.

Mr. Poole: May I point out that if that procedure be adopted it will place some of us at a definite disadvantage. We may desire to oppose this Amendment and to support later Amendments. A Member could hardly make a speech supporting one Amendment and opposing another in the same discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] At least, he would have to be a political acrobat to do so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As objection is taken to a general discussion, we must confine the present discussion to the Amendment which is before the House, and we cannot consider the subsequent Amendments until we reach them.

Mr. Westwood: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, although I think it would have been of advantage to have had a general discussion covering the whole subject. I was about to point out that there are difficulties now in the minds of many medical experts on the question of insanity being incurable. I have here an extract from the "Edinburgh Evening News" of 24th June which describes the case of a husband whose wife had been for seven years in a mental home. He regarded her as hopelessly incurable and contemplated divorce proceedings under the new Matrimonial Causes Act, but he is now told that his wife shows every sign of making a recovery as a result of new knowledge which has been brought to light by medical science. I contend that it would be wrong in a Bill of this kind to define as incurably insane a person who has been under treatment continuously for five years, when it is admitted by medical science that there is the possibility of a cure even after the patient has been seven years in a mental institution. As I say, where one of the two parties to a marriage breaks the bond, through causes over which they have control, it should be competent for the courts to grant a divorce, but where the cause alleged is one like insanity over which the person concerned has no control and where one party may actually have driven the other party insane, it would be wrong to incorporate it in a Bill of this kind as a ground for divorce. This matter, I know, was argued out in Committee upstairs.


I was not present at those proceedings, but I feel that I could not conscientiously allow incurable insanity to be included in the grounds for divorce, without lodging my protest and if necessary carrying it to a Division.

8.55 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to second the Amendment.
I expressed my views on this subject very fully in the Committee upstairs, and I do not propose to go over all the arguments on this occasion. I fully agree with what has been said by the Mover of the Amendment. We are dealing here with something which is different from the other grounds for divorce. There are very few cases to-day, I believe, in which the experts who have to do with mental disease would say there is such a thing as incurable insanity, where there is not the slightest chance of the patient recovering, and because there is that doubt we are dealing with a ground for divorce, not on facts, but on reasonings, suggestions and ideas.
I believe that if this Bill becomes law without this Amendment, we shall be giving to a great many people who are in a state of nervous breakdown, or even who are patients in mental hospitals, a tremendous amount of anxiety, and that we shall cause such people, from the very moment when a nervous or mental disease may come over them, the fear that their husband or their wife, as the case may be, may be able to obtain a divorce from them, when all the time they are suffering from a disease that can be cured and that may be cured. They will feel that they have not a chance of putting their case, as they will be in an institution, and that they will be divorced as incurably insane but yet may come out later into the world. It may be that in the case of a wife, her husband may be a wage earner who has married again and got a new home, and the wife, who was said to be incurably insane and has proved curable, comes out sane into the world again, with not a single penny, with no widow's pension, with no unemployment allowance, with absolutely nothing, and she will come out of an institution for the insane only to have to go into the poor house.
It is a very grave matter, and a mis take such as that would have appalling

consequences. If it was a thing that could be proved, if there was something in the Bill to safeguard the proving of incurable insanity, much more could be said on its behalf, but if these words remain in the Bill, it is possible that we may have in Scotland case after case where, on the mere presumption that the case will not be cured, divorce will be granted. I wonder whether the husband of a wife who has been certified as insane and placed in an institution, when it comes to her having been treated there for four years, will be very anxious to see that she gets a full chance of coming out before the five years have elapsed. I wonder whether there will be the same anxiety, the same help for the mental patient, as might otherwise be the case, and whether, when the five years period comes, divorce may not take place simply because the anxiety has been enough to have retarded recovery.
I have in my possession letters that have been sent to me on this subject, and I have discussed the matter with people who already, because this matter is being discussed, are, I am told, having their recovery retarded. I have here a letter from somebody who explains that her daughter, the mother of a young family, is now in an institution, but she reads the paper and knows what is going on. She has read about this Bill, and already, when her mother goes to see her, she expresses anxiety over and over again that if she is not better, her husband may divorce her. She feels that she must be better by such and such a period, and I am asked in this letter whether I can do nothing to safeguard the position of people like her, who feel that because definite time limit is put in the Bill, they may not recover sufficiently soon and thus become liable to be divorced.
I would like hon. Members to consider well the dangers of this situation. We have something far worse in this Scottish Bill than was introduced into the English Bill, and I wonder how those who drafted this Bill drafted it in this manner. There is in Clause 1 no definition of what "incurably insane" means. The definition is tucked away elsewhere, and people who have looked at the Bill and written to me on the subject, asking me to oppose the Bill, feel that the insertion only of the words "incurably insane" rather than a definition of incurable insanity is a very dangerous thing. I


would ask the promoters of the Bill whether they will tell us why, when the Bill was framed, these words only were put in, and why we were not given in the Clause the full definition of "incurably insane." A definition is given about cruelty and other things, and it is given in the English Bill, but it is not given in this Clause, and many people consider that that makes it unsafe. In Clause 6 there is a definition, but nobody would describe it as a definite definition of "incurably insane"; and it is because of the anxieties that will be caused to married people in institutions that I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
I would remind hon. Members that cures have taken place in cases where, only a few years ago, it was thought that such a type of illness was incurable. Let us remember that last year in Scotland 27 married people who had been in institutions for more than five years came out as cured, and of those 27 people there were 22 who came out whose husband or wife was still alive. On the Committee stage my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate pointed out that 13 of those 22 were between the ages of 5o and 82, and he suggested that people over 50 were not likely to sue for a divorce, because, he thought, divorces were sued for because people wished to marry again, and that those over 50 would not wish to do so. In view of what has happened in England, where they look at it from another point of view, I hope the Lord Advocate, when he replies, will let us know whether in England it is not the case that the average age has been 80. I think the case put before us by the Lord Advocate, that we have only to consider that we were to protect nine or ten, taking the average of the 27 last year, does not stand after that.
In Scotland last year 22 married people who had been over five years in an institution came out, and I believe that if the Bill were passed without this Amendment, grievous harm would be caused. I do not believe that in Scotland there is any wish for this particular ground for divorce. I have received quantities of letters since I spoke on the Committee stage and only one was in favour of it. The writer of that letter was in favour of divorce for many other things besides this. I ask hon. Members

to consider well whether their correspondence from their constituencies and their visits to Scotland have convinced them that the people of Scotland are asking for this. Have they found that this is an urgent necessity? If it is not an urgent necessity, why should not Scotland wait until the experiment that is being made in England has been tried out? Let us see whether it brings the best results. In the meanwhile, I ask support for this Amendment because I believe it is desperately wanted by the people of Scotland.

9.6 p.m

Mr. Johnston: Mr. Johnston rose——

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the fact that a Front Bench Member has been called mean that this Debate will finish with his speech?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is a Private Member's Bill, and it is the usual courtesy to call a Front bench Member when he rises, but that does not mean that the Debate will finish.

Mr. Johnston: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is a supporter of the point of view which has just been put by the two hon. Members who have spoken, and I am sure he will agree that it is desirable, if we are to have a discussion on this point, that both sides should be put. I am one of those who in the Committee voted with the majority in favour of the retention of "incurably insane" in the Bill. Twenty-four Members of the Committee voted for it and nine against. There must have been some arguments or some reasons which induced the 24 Members to support the idea that "incurably insane" should remain in the Bill. I have considerable agreement with the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsburgh) when she referred, against your Ruling, Sir, to what might be a proper definition of incurable insanity. When we come to Clause 6 I shall have similar hesitation in regard to the limited safeguards which are in the Bill.
We are discussing now the simple question whether incurable insanity should remain in the Bill as a cause for divorce. In the earlier stages I was opposed to it, but I think that the balance of argument is in favour of its insertion. There are difficulties which we all recognise.


There are family and domestic troubles which we all recognise. There is the point of view put by the hon. Member for Dundee, which nobody can dispute, and there is the argument used by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), which nobody can dispute either. We have to address ourselves, therefore, to the balance of the burden of difficulties. There are cases where a woman is taken away because of mental illness and the husband is left with a young family. I know of one such case. He has to get a housekeeper, and sometimes the housing conditions and accommodation are such that associations of that kind lead to immorality. It is adultery, and we should be false to our duty here if we designated it in any other way. There are cases—nobody knows how many—in which this is a factor in the situation, and we have to face it. It is no use merely shutting our eyes to the disadvantages which are inherent in the existing situation. What we have to do is to balance up the disadvantages and see where the least possible public harm lies.
We have been given the figures which show that there are 27 people in Scotland who are discharged on the average in a year after having been five years in an institution. Of those, there are five whose husband or wife, as the case may be, has died. Of the remaining 22, there are some—nobody knows how many—where the question of divorce has never arisen and where the spouse outside awaits with joy and gratitude the return of the afflicted companion. The question of divorce might have arisen in five, ten or a dozen cases, and what we have to face honestly as public representatives is whether the dangers inherent there—and there are dangers—are greater than the dangers and difficulties and miseries which are inherent in the existing situation. For my part, subject to a proper definition and proper safeguards being given as to what is incurable insanity, and subject to precautions being taken to see that no illicit or unfair advantage is taken of this Measure, I think that the balance lies in favour of keeping in the words "incurably insane." If incurable insanity can be properly defined and proper safeguards can be given, I think that there are such a number of people

in Scotland who will desire that the spouse outside should be given freedom, that I am prepared to vote, as I did on the Committee stage, for the retention of these words in the Bill.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I cannot give a silent vote upon this Amendment, the reason being that I opposed this Bill tooth and nail in Committee, supporting the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh). Like the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) I listened to all the Debates in Committee. Fortunately or unfortunately it does not usually happen that I reason along different lines from the line taken by the right hon. Member, but I do so very definitely to-night. All the authorities we heard—and we heard doctors and lawyers, never mind the ordinary Members—informed us that there is no medical authority in this country which will certify anyone as incurably insane, and it is a terrible responsibility which Members are taking upon themselves in supporting this Bill in face of the opinions of men who have specialised in this particular disease. I call it a disease because I regard insanity as a disease, like smallpox or tuberculosis. At one time those diseases were supposed to be incurable, as cancer is regarded to be now, but man's ingenuity has succeeded in overcoming nearly every disease which afflicts the human frame, and it is just possible that in time we may discover ways and means of alleviating this hellish disease. In spite of the advice of medical practitioners, etc., warning us not to do so, the Committee decided to include incurable insanity in the Bill, but I hope the House will not follow that example, because we have had no evidence that insanity is incurable. Even the right hon. Member for West Stirling who has evidently recanted from the position he took upstairs, did not give the House one little bit of information. We have had no guidance from our Front Bench as to why we should not vote for this Amendment.
This is a most diabolical Bill, apart from the particular words which we wish to delete. We desire to delete the reference to incurable insanity in order to try to make the Bill as human as we possibly can. I said that I was not going to take any part in the discussion, but it is impossible for me to sit silent, after the fight


I put up in Committee, when I find that the Government have now taken the Bill under their wing and know that presently we shall have whole hordes of the supporters of the Government coming in to vote, although they have not been present to hear the arguments. It is another reason why Scotland should get home rule. The English Members, who are not here now, will presently come in, probably in their hundreds, and swamp Scotland again. It is most unjust. I do not want to say any more, because I feel so strongly about the Bill. It is an abominable affair that this Bill should be handed on to Scotland, as it will be, not by the votes of Scottish men and w omen at all. The senior Member for Dundee has stood her ground throughout on this Bill, and I thought she was going to get some support, but from the information which I have been able to glean in speaking to several Members since it was known that the Bill was to come on to-night it has been arranged for the supporters of the Government to come in to vote the Scottish Members down. I hope that the Scottish Members will rally to us, because they can take it from me that they will have to answer to Scotland if this Bill goes through.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: This is an occasion on which each of us has to consult his own conscience and to act upon his experience of life and his observations during such years as he has lived. The issue has nothing to do with party affiliations at all. While I fully appreciate the cases brought forward by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, my experience seems to accord rather with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) and I feel that the greater harm would be done to the person who is left with an insane partner. Like the right hon. Gentleman I know a case in which a man has been left with a family, his wife having been sent to a home. She is, so far as we can see, incurably insane, and he has been put into an insufferable position.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: So far as w ho can see?

Mr. Stewart: So far as one can gather from such reports as are given by the medical authorities. I would point out that this Clause does not compel anything to be done. It will only operate if there

is a petition for divorce by the other partner to the marriage bond, and it will surely be an exceptional case if the other partner takes action merely because the spouse is insane. There will probably be a good many other reasons.

Mr. Logan: A petition on this ground alone will be quite sufficient.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but I cannot imagine a man making it the only ground for taking action. I think he would have other reasons as well, and I think we must take into account the wider considerations which will affect a man's judgment and desires in a case like this. I feel that if we were to deny to a man or woman this way out of an intolerable position we should not be acting fairly or justly. I recognise that there are these 22 possible cases, but I am sure that, if we could get at the figures, there would be many times that number of cases on the other side.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member, who was on the Committee, will recall that the onus of proof has been put upon the person who is in the institution. The onus of proving that he or she is not incurably insane, that burden is put upon an individual who is one of the most helpless persons in society.

Mr. Stewart: I do not deny that, but I invite the hon. Member to consider the other partner to the marriage bond. Our consideration should be for him equally with the other person. My greater sympathies are for him. I feel that I should be acting in accordance with my duty, as I see it, by supporting this Clause.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I am sure that every one will approach the Bill and the Amendment with a good deal of sympathy with both points of view that have been expressed. The speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) is one of which we must all take notice. She stated a very definite case for supporting the Amendment. I do not yield to any one in my respect for the sanctity of marriage, but I feel that I must oppose the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) pictured the case of those who found themselves in an institution probably because of the cruelty of their partner, who would be free to obtain a divorce though he had been responsible for the


other partner finding her way into the institution. For many years I served on a mental hospital board and on a visiting committee in lunacy and I have seen at first hand many cases who find their way into these institutions. There is another side to the picture that has been painted. What is the position of a wife whose husband by his own personal abuse, perhaps by excessive drinking, has brought himself into the position of becoming incurably insane? Do you think that the House is entitled to tie a woman, perhaps with a young family, to such a husband? That is a side of the picture that occurs very often in real life. The onus in the Clause is that a person shall be found to be incurably insane. I must dissociate myself from the remark of the last speaker that the onus will be upon the person who is in the institution——

Mr. Kirkwood: That is the Bill.

Mr. Poole: I do not accept that for a moment. The onus will surely be upon the pursuer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If that is the position, I accept it, but I do not see how a person who is in an institution can have any means of proving that he is not insane. There are many people in institutions who claim that they are not insane and that everyone else is. But, if that is the onus in the Bill, I shall certainly support the Amendment. I was speaking under a misapprehension. If the onus is on the person in the institution, it is an intolerable position and one to which I will not subscribe. I will not pursue my remarks any further.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I think the whole House has a great deal of sympathy with the aspect of the case put so admirably by the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) and others. At the same time, I think the House will equally consider the hardships that have been explained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). When passing Bills in this House we often find ourselves in the position of having to inflict hardship on someone and we have to weigh up what is best on balance. The figures that have been given show clearly to my mind that, when you have over 2,000 people who have been in asylums for over five years and continue to be insane, you are dealing with a substantial body and, when you

compare that with the figures that have been agreed to in the Debate, of some 27 altogether, reduced to 22, who are left married when they go out of the asylum, one is dealing with two very distinct problems. On balance, this principle of divorce for incurable insanity should be established. It has already been agreed upon in the English Bill. In the Scottish Standing Committee the Division showed that Scottish opinion was in favour of the Bill, and it is the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) who will have to answer for Scotland and no one else if the recommendations of the Committee are not followed. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) pointed out that cruelty itself, which was the ground of divorce, might be the cause of the insanity, and there is great force in what he says, but there is a later Amendment which fully covers that point.

Mr. Westwood: Is it possible for the hon. Member to refer to that, when I obeyed your Ruling, Sir?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought the hon. Member appeared to be just touching on the subject.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I thought I was entitled to do so, seeing that subsequent to your Ruling the hon. Member raised the point that I was endeavouring to answer. I will not proceed further in case I should be acting against the Ruling. The hon: Lady chaffed me about the average age of those who have managed to get divorce in England, and I admit that it is high, but those people have got old waiting for this Act to pass, and I think she will find, when it comes into operation, that the average age is lower.

Miss Horsbrugh: Do not the statistics show that of people who were cured after five years, there were in Scotland ten under and 13 over 50?

Mr. Erskine Hill: I think that is so, but the hon. Lady is touching on a totally different point. The point is the average age of those who sought divorce in England. There are, of course, a great many older people who come out——

Miss Horsbrugh: Who would seek divorce?

Mr. Erskine Hill: I agree with what my right hon. Friend said, though it appears to be negatived by the effect of the


English Act, that the whole of those old people would not naturally seek divorce. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said that it would not be possible to prove incurable insanity and, I think against your Ruling, did deal with the question of presumption. I will not deal with that question at this time beyond saying that I would agree with what the hon. Member said and that it is for that reason that I support the presumptive rule which is laid down in a later Clause. I want to persuade the House, if I can, that we are dealing here with a very real problem. In many poor households you have the sort of situation to which an hon. Member referred, the man or the woman being in the asylum. I can conceive of no greater cause for divorce and of no greater inability to fulfil what in Scotland we call the marriage contract, than insanity, which leaves the spouse who is left more effectually alone, and still not able to remedy it, than by death itself.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I rise to give my support to the Bill, as against the Amendment. I recognise the earnestness and the depth of conviction of those who take the opposite view to myself; I have dealt for so long and so closely with this matter that I can appreciate very much their point of view. I appreciate also the earnestness and the deep conviction of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). If he can make an argument for Scottish Home Rule out of this, I will certainly not object to that part of his speech. I think he made one mistake when he spoke as though the Government had taken this Measure under their aegis, and would come in to defeat Scottish Members. I understand that the Bill remains a private Member's Bill and that there is to be a free vote.
Reference has been made to the opinions of medical practitioners, alienists and the like. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs, I would point out that those opinions were by no means all on the one side. The name of Dr. Henderson has often been mentioned in these Debates. He is an eminent medical man in Edinburgh. No sooner had he given his opinion in favour of insanity being ruled out as a ground of divorce, then equally eminent men plunged into the controversy on the other side. We can take it that

there is a very large volume of medical opinion in favour of including insanity as a ground of divorce. The point has been brought forward here to-night that the growing opinion of medical men is that even this disease may prove to be curable. I support that point very strongly. I would recall that there are very few meetings of the British Medical Association year by year but that indication is made that some disease hitherto regarded as incurable has been found to be curable. If it should prove that insanity is curable, and that there is not such a thing as incurable insanity there will be no divorce, because none——

Mr. Westwood: No, if the cure takes place after six or seven years, people can be divorced because the cure will not have taken place within five years.

Mr. Barr: I am in a difficulty because of Clause 6 to which I am not able to refer. I do not go further, observing your Ruling entirely, than to say that provision is made in the Bill for the freest expression of opinion in regard to whether there should be such divorce, and my point, which my hon. Friend did not appreciate, was that it is a complete argument that divorce should not take place, because there might be curability. That is the only point I make at this time. I will only say—this is another point in response to what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Poole)—that we are not dealing just now with grounds of presumption, but the whole point is that a certain presumption will follow from the fact that people have been five years under continual care, but against that presumption the Bill will later provide that there may be the fullest argument to combat that presumption, and for the whole question to be treated upon its merits.

Mr. Mathers: On a point of Order. Because of the observations that my hon. Friend is making, will you allow him to indicate where in the Bill he finds ground for the statement which he has just made?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be better to leave the definition until we come to the Clause in question and to the Amendment to leave out the appropriate Sub-section dealing in ith this matter. It is desirable to have a full Debate when the matter arises in that way.

Mr. Barr: I think I was carefully refraining from being definite on that matter. Most of us are aware of what is provided in Clause 6, but I refrain from condescending upon that Clause. An instance was given of a case of insanity for seven years, ending in discharge, and I gave an instance myself in the Committee of a person who had been in an institution in the West of Scotland for 25 years and who was allowed to go home. The governor of the mental hospital thought he could risk it. He thought he would allow her to go home, and she never returned. Those individual cases are extremely rare, and should not prevent us considering the other matters to which I will refer before I have done. This matter has already been examined with very great care. We had a discussion at great length on the English Bill, and the matter has been very fully discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee. The Senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has asked us to show that there is any wish in Scotland for the Bill, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs pointed out that it is we who have to answer for Scotland.
I will take one or two indications of the opinion of Scotland. I will take the Church of Scotland itself. It is not the Church to which I belong, but it covers the main membership of the churches in Scotland. On the first occasion, at the Assembly before last, approval was given to the Bill and to the setting up of a committee carefully to investigate the various causes on which divorce could take place, particularly from the point of view of the purpose of marriage having been defeated. I think there were 12 ministers and 10 elders of all shades of opinion on that committee, and the result of it was that they approved of the Bill as it now stands.

Miss Horsbrugh: Let us get this point clear. I think the hon. Member will agree with me that that committee said in its report that it would not agree to insanity, but that it would agree to incurable insanity. That is the difficulty of definition again.

Mr. Barr: That exactly confirms what I am saying, because it is incurable insanity that is in the Bill. They were in close touch with us, and particularly with

myself and with the promoter of the Measure. They sent us their findings, and all that they did was to put in two Amendments, which were not minor in importance, but were small Amendments, and these were accepted by the promoters and are now in the Bill. One of them was as to the continuous character of the care, and the other provided that voluntary patients were excluded. These small Amendments have been accepted. Otherwise they agreed cordially with the Bill.

Mr. Westwood: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that the committee were unanimous, may I point out that on page 3 of the report these words occur:
While there is a difference of opinion as to the inclusion of insanity as a ground of divorce.
That does not look as though the committee were unanimous.

Mr. Barr: I was not saying that they were unanimous; I was giving their final judgment on this particular Measure. The convener of the committee himself, and others who were greatly interested in the Bill, were in the closest touch with us, and on behalf of the committee and knowing the opinion of their Church, they accepted it. I make no suggestion that they were absolutely unanimous; we know that they were not; but we are dealing with the Bill as it now stands, and I say that it has the approval, not only of the committee, but of the Church of Scotland, or at least a very large majority of that Church. In the next place, I would refer to my own Church. At a recent Assembly this very question of insanity was brought forward—[Interruption]. My Church, I say with pride, is as sane as any other Church, and as sane as those who are outside all churches. I want to be perfectly fair. I admit that there are churches in Scotland that are strongly opposed to insanity being a ground for divorce the Free Church of Scotland, for example. I am taking my own Church. This very subject was debated; it was the only subject brought forward; and, by a majority of more than two to one, we resolved to take the Bill as it stands, and continue to include insanity as a ground of divorce.
There are only two other things that I want to say. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) touched on a very vital point. There are questions of virtue itself, questions of


morality, that bring before us the consideration that there may be, and I believe there are, cases in which it is in the interests of pure living and of morality that such relief should be granted in certain cases, and I believe that, balancing the two sides, balancing the clangers, if you like, these considerations will outweigh—at least they do with me, and I believe they will with others—the other disadvantages, inconveniences and even dangers. The other thing I want to say, and I think it was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart), is that this, after all, is not a measure of compulsion. The cases in which it will be taken advantage of will be extremely rare. Even in the case of desertion as a ground of divorce—and that has obtained in Scotland since 1567 or thereabouts—the percentage of divorces to marriages in Scotland has always been extremely small. This provision will not be taken advantage of save in very rare cases. It is for the churches themselves, and all who mould the opinion of the country, to engender such feelings, such high ideals of the marriage state, such ideas of honour and virtue and fairness, that a wise use will be made, as I believe it will, of the provision. I think that, in all the interests concerned, insanity—incurable insanity—should be a ground of divorce.

9.53 P.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I think we shall all agree that, in considering this Amendment, we are dealing with the most serious issue raised by the Bill. I want to give, in as few words as possible, the reasons why I personally do not feel able to support the Amendment. I want to make it quite clear that we are not dealing with, and I am not now considering, the question of the onus of proof. I do not say that I shall necessarily agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) when we come to the Clause which deals with the onus of proof. What we are considering now, and under your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we must confine ourselves to this, is simply the question whether in future in the law of Scotland incurable insanity shall be a ground of divorce. That is the only issue that we are called upon at this moment to decide.
It is perfectly true that we have not as yet had very much experience of the

working of the English Act, but we have had a certain amount of experience of it, and I think I may be one of the very few Members present in the House this evening who have had an opportunity of seeing that Act in operation; and, apart from Clause 6, this Bill, of course, is drawn upon very similar lines. These matters are not dealt with at all lightly in the divorce courts. They are not considered in the same way, or, indeed, in anything like the same time, as ordinary undefended divorce cases, which do not, of course, take very long. In fact, the courts inquire with the most scrupulous care, not only into the present mental health but also into the whole mental history of the respondent. In each case it is provided, as it is to be provided under this Bill, that the respondent shall be represented. Even if this Bill were to go through in its present form——

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: On a point of Order. I think you gave a Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that questions of court procedure, proofs, and the like could not be discussed at this stage, but should be deferred until Clause 6. If that be so, would it be in order for an hon. Member to discuss what the court procedure is in England, and how careful and good it is, when we have not yet arrived at the sage at which we can discuss the court procedure in Scotland?

Mr. Foot: I am not discussing now the onus of proof in England. I am discussing the way in which these matters are dealt with under similar conditions under the recently passed English law, and I should have thought that that was strictly relevant to this Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It did not seem to me that the hon. Member was saying anything that was out of order. He was not going into the question, which is raised in Clause 6, of where the onus of proof would lie, but was merely pointing out how cases of this particular character were dealt with in the courts of this country. That appears to me to be strictly relevant to this Amendment.

Mr. Foot: I was saying that in each case the respondent is represented, and the doctor who is called in order to prove insanity is in each case not only examined by counsel for the petitioner, but is cross-examined, and closely cross-examined,


by counsel for the respondent; and it is only when the court is as fully satisfied as it is possible to be—I agree with my hon. Friend opposite that it is not possible to be absolutely certain—that a decree is granted. These things are not dealt with in the English courts, and will not be in the Scottish courts, in any formal spirit.
I come to a point which I do not think has been brought before the attention of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. I do not say that we ought necessarily to follow English legislation. I do not say for one moment that because a Bill of this kind has been passed for England we ought necessarily to pass it for Scotland, but I want to bring to the notice of the House one difficulty, and it seems to me a very serious difficulty, that would be created—at any rate, it would be an anomaly if in future incurable insanity were to be a ground for divorce in England and not in Scotland. Anyone is entitled to go and sue for divorce in England if he can show that he has an English domicile. These people do not need to be natives of England; they can come from any other part of the world. Suppose this Amendment is carried, what is to be the position?
In the first place, take a case where the wife is insane, and confined in an institution in Scotland for five years or upwards, and the husband wants to get a divorce on grounds of insanity. If he happens to be a wealthy man and it is easy for him to change his permanent residence, to leave Scotland and go to live somewhere in England, as soon as he has got the evidence which would enable him to satisfy the English court that he has changed his domicile that would enable him to get a decree in the English court. The husband who happened to be a poor man—let us say a mill worker, for instance—would not have those advantages. For economic reasons, it would be impossible for him to change his domicile; and therefore he would have to put up with what we all agree is a hardship, whether we think it should be altered or not. Let me take the matter a step further. The wife's domicile is always the domicile of her husband. So we should have the further anomaly that a Scottish husband whose wife was insane and confined in an institution could

change his domicile and live in England and get a decree in the English courts; but if it were the husband who was insane and the wife wanted a decree she could not do so, because her domicile would remain that of her husband. If he were confined in an institution in Scotland her domicile would be Scottish.
The Eon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) gave an example which I am bound to say did not entirely impress me. He read a cutting from a newspaper giving the case of a man whose wife had been in an institution for seven years and the man himself expressed the opinion that he might be eligible for divorce under the new Act, but I do not think that an example like that carries us very much further. [Interruption.] That example might have great force when discussing Clause 6. I do not think it carries us much further on this Amendment.

Mr. Westwood: May I submit that it did prove that after five years, so far. as this individual was concerned, she was not incurably insane. I was trying to show that it was difficult to prove incurable insanity. Science has discovered so many cures that it is difficult to say that any disease is incurable.

Mr. Foot: We all appreciate the force of what the hon. Member says. I do not think anybody would deny that there are a certain number of cases where, after five years, or any other period which we choose to put in an Act of Parliament, there will be a recovery. All that we are saying is that in this matter we have to strike a balance between the hardships on one side and the hardships on another. I do not think it has been denied that there are a far larger number of cases where there has been no recovery after five years. The senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) spoke with great force of 20 people who came out after five years. I am much more concerned with the very much larger number who did not come out after five years. We are creating a very great hardship for those young men and women who happen to be married to a husband or wife who is insane. It may be that it cannot be said that they will not recover, but in a great many cases there is an overwhelming probability that they will not


recover. They are cut off from the married state, in all probability for many years and it may be for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Logan: Would the hon. Member say that it would be a ground for rescinding the divorce if the insane person recovered?

Mr. Foot: There are obvious reasons why the divorce cannot be rescinded. The most serious argument that has been raised, both in the Standing Committee and in the Debate here this evening, was that raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk, when they spoke of mental disease. I agree that that was a very formidable argument. They say, where there is no question of moral turpitude involved, no question of conduct involved, where the respondent is in no way at fault, should that be a ground for divorce? But can it be seriously contended that there is no real distinction between ordinary physical disease and mental disease? It seems to me, particularly when we are considering the marriage relation, that there is a very real distinction. When you have one partner in a marriage suffering from some form of physical disease, even there there can be some form of companionship between the husband and wife; but when there is mental disease, at any rate in some of the forms it frequently takes, any real form of companionship is impossible. This is the reason why I for one intend to vote against this Amendment when it goes to a Division. There is a provision both in English law and in Scottish law that in certain cases the marriage is not dissolved but the marriage ceremony is set aside, where, on certain grounds, the marriage is shown to be a nullity, where it is found that, whereas, in fact, there has been a ceremony, for one reason or another the marriage is not a marriage in fact. If we take the word "nullity" in a broader sense it applies to what we are considering here, that through something which may be no fault of the respondent but which, in the vast majority of cases, at any rate, is also no fault of the petitioner, these marriages have in fact become null. The marriage tie, the legal bond remains but everything else has gone.

Mr. Logan: Even if there is issue?

Mr. Foot: Even if there is issue. At the time you get insanity of the degree required by this Bill everything but the legal bond has gone, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbarton in a very powerful speech, said that he could not take the responsibility of passing a Measure like this and striking possibly at those who might come out after some years in an institution. I cannot take the very much heavier responsibility of keeping within these bonds a very much larger number of people who are suffering, in my opinion, even more considerable hardship.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: I rise to support the Bill and also to ask that incurable insanity be retained in the Measure. I did not raise my voice in Committee because I wanted to give the Bill every opportunity and facility for getting on to the Statute Book. I hope that, although we have different points of view, we shall all give to each other the credit of acting according to the evidence that has been given both in the Committee and in this House. There is nothing in the Bill that compels any person to apply for divorce. The ground of incurable insanity is a ground that is reasonable. I have heard a great deal of talk about incurable insanity. I go very often to mental institutions in Scotland, and, in spite of all the arguments used here and the evidence from the medical profession, as one goes round those wards the doctor will say, "There is a case that will get steadily worse. The patient is incurable and will ultimately die, in all probability in a violent manner as the result of a seizure of some kind." Experience has taught these medical men to understand that there in the institutions are a large number of patients suffering from a type of insanity which they regard as incurable, no matter what the profession may say when it is theorising and it comes to a point that it has to put its opinions down in concrete form in a document.
I am often told by people who think they are very religious that divorce should not take place. I am not concerned with the man or woman who does not want divorce. If there is a desire for divorce among the community, you are entitled to pay heed to the demands and desires of the community. There may be other grounds that may crop up


from time to time, but we can only move according to enlightened opinion in this country when we see the necessity of certain changes taking place. The senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) raised an argument which I thought was scarcely worthy of her. She said that a man might use this Measure in order to get divorce, but he might have some other reason in the background, meaning that he was tired of his partner. Surely, if he was tired of his partner, that in itself would be sufficient ground for divorce. I suggest that no person should be compelled by law to live with any partner with whom he or she did not desire to live. It was scarcely worthy of the hon. Lady in desiring to tie people together who were tired of each other or had lost any form of affection for one another.
I have seen people in these institutions, and I am thinking especially of a man who has been 21 years in an asylum. He has got steadily worse. His wife was a very young woman when he went into that asylum. She had a young family, and she has reared it. She knew very shortly after her husband was committed to the asylum that he would never recover. I have seen him at least every two years over a period of 17 years, and he has been getting steadily worse, and to-day he is in such a bad state that he cannot recognise me. A son of these people, 17 years of age, was also taken to the asylum and died within two years. There was a tragedy in that woman's life. It happened when she was in her early twenties, and does anyone suggest that that woman ought from the age of 25, all through her life, when she knew that her partner had been committed to that institution with no prospect of relief, to be tied to that partner? That is an example of the other cases.
As the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) said, you cannot do complete 100 per cent. justice to all people when you are considering certain Measures which are being passed in this House. I came to the Committee with a completely open mind. I have never given special consideration to the Measure. I have heard the arguments and the speech of the hon. Lady—I think she made a splendid speech from her particular angle—but I think that the evidence, on the other hand, is very much in favour

of the point of view that I am expressing here to-night. I discussed the question of this Measure with a man whose wife has been in an asylum for about 13 years. He said: "I would never dream of taking action for divorce. I would be a cad to divorce my wife while she is suffering." The man who takes that point of view is not compelled to divorce his wife. His loyalty and affection can remain. There are many people who will go to the grave cherishing that feeling of affection and companionship of which they have been deprived. I know of cases with which I have come in contact while a member of an old parish council. Many of these have been women with seven, eight or nine young children. The husbands, in order to bring up these children, have had to bring another woman into the house. They have cohabited, and they have had children and have expressed a desire to marry, but have been prevented by the law.
There are many men who would never desire to desert or divorce their partner, but we have to take account of large numbers of people who might in certain circumstances desire to have their freedom in order to marry again. Medical men in institutions can say that this is a curable case and that that case will not recover. With regard to those people who may be religious, or other people who have qualms as to the passage of this Bill, I would say to them that if they have these scruples nobody is wishing to compel them to divorce their partner; they are free to exercise their religious scruples. If we were compelling them to take action for divorce or we were divorcing them by Act of Parliament, it would be another matter. What I desire to do is to do the best I can for people who are in these unfortunate circumstances, and, as the overwhelming amount of evidence seems to be in favour of the Bill, I shall give it my whole-hearted support in the Division Lobby.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not opposed to proper arrangements being made, under proper conditions,. for anyone who is desirous of divorce or who is entitled to divorce on the ground of insanity, but I am absolutely in favour of the Amendment. I submit that no one is capable of putting forward any real case on this question in a Bill such as this, and in


the form in which it is drafted. The right hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston) tells us of a case where the wife is in an asylum, the man is left with a family of small children and he brings in a woman to help, and the housing conditions are such that they become immoral people. When I said this was not the answer he gave me a lecture on what constitutes immorality and adultery. Surely, if the man is left with a small family and he has to bring in a woman to look after them, the solution is not to accuse him of immorality and to present a Bill of this sort, but to improve the housing conditions under which you have condemned him to live.
When we come to the question of incurable insanity we have to admit that, generally speaking, nobody can lay the blame for insanity on the victim of insanity. It is a mental disease and is treated as such. There are other diseases of a very terrible character. Here we have a mental disease, and what do the promoters of the Bill do? In the first Clause they set down grounds for divorce-desertion, cowardly desertion, brutality, bestiality, and along with cowardice, brutality and bestiality they class one particular disease, insanity. Can hon. Members imagine anyone classing cowardice, brutality and bestiality with rheumatoid arthritis? We have been told of men or women who have suffered from mental disease. I have known cases of rheumatoid arthritis, which has left the victim incapable of doing anything.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member sits in this House as the only representative of the Communist party, and I want to put to him this question. We have always understood that Communists take a rather special view on this particular question. Is the hon. Member now stating the official view of the Communist party of this country on this question?

Mr. Gallecher: I am speaking as the representative of West Fife. If the hon. Member wants to discuss with me the official policy of the Communist party on this matter I am prepared at any time to meet him. I am saying now that the manner in which this question is being discussed is utterly indefensible. You cannot take any form of disease in association with cowardice, brutality and bestiality. Take paralysis. I know of men, and also women, who are suffering

from complete paralysis. Would you associate paralysis with cowardice, brutality and bestiality in any Bill? Surely hon. Members can see that the category is entirely different; you cannot possibly associate them in the same Bill. Even foolish Tories opposite should understand that disease is entirely different from these other causes which are allowed for divorce under the Bill. You can have a Bill providing for divorce on the grounds of desertion, brutality and bestiality, but when it comes to a particular form of disease then it is something separate.
I put this point of view upstairs in Committee and said that instead of a Bill of this character there should be a separate Bill dealing with illness, either mental or physical. just before we entered on the consideration of this Bill I was talking outside about the effect it would have on a woman with two or three children whom she loved, who had a nice home which she loved, and who was devoted to her husband. Something goes wrong, because a woman can be the subject of very serious pains and agonies. It is said that a woman can suffer more pain in one day than a man can in his lifetime. As a result of the pains and agonies which a mother has to go through, her balance for a bit is upset and she goes into an institution. Month after month passes. On occasions she comes round when she is quite clear in her mind, and the thought is always there—what is going to happen? As a consequence of the continual worry, she is actually driven crazy. This is not a matter that can be dealt with in a Bill of this sort. As I said in the Standing Committee, and as I repeated at the beginning of my speech, I am not against a man or a woman getting a divorce on grounds of insanity; but proper and careful provision should be made, and the subject should be dealt with of itself. It is scandalous to present it in this particular form in this Bill.
It is quite possible that there are many men and women who would like to be relieved of the burden of a paralysed spouse, or a spouse who was so affected by a certain disease as to threaten with ruin the whole life of, for instance, a young wife of 25, not because the husband was insane, but because of his being completely crippled and useless for life because of some other disease. If one


disease is to be dealt with, diseases as a whole should be taken in a special category, quite apart from the other category in this Bill. It is of no use hon. Members saying that they want to legislate and that they have to weigh the balance between one and the other. Surely, they are not going to weigh the balance between someone who has been unfortunate enough to have a mental collapse and someone who has committed bestiality —surely, they do not consider those two things as being in the same category—or someone who has suffered a nervous breakdown, it may be through devotion to housewifery duties, and someone who has committed all kinds of brutalities.
If hon. Members are going to weigh the balance, let them make the categories clear and easily understandable. Desertion, brutality and bestiality, as grounds for divorce, should be treated in one Bill or section of a Bill. Then, in another section or in a separate Bill—and I would say a separate Bill—various diseases, mental and physical, should be dealt with in a clear and careful manner, and dealt with in such a way that in no circumstances is one particular disease singled out, with the result that worry, as a consequence of that selection, may so affect the patient as to damn him (or her) for all time. I maintain that this Amendment should be supported. The Government should then take the responsibility for setting up a Committee, if necessary, in order to consider how this matter should be dealt with effectively, and how there could be set up the organisation or responsible authority to make a decision affecting the very small, the almost infinitesimal, number of cases that would be concerned in the question of divorce on grounds of insanity or other forms of disease.

10.29 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I wish to indicate briefly the position of the Government, and to deal with one or two isolated topics which have emerged in the course of the Debate. The Amendment before the House raises a question of social principle upon which the Government have taken no decision. The House will be asked, irrespective of party, to arrive at a conclusion upon that topic without any pressure or any suggestion of any kind. I might explain that

as in the Committee upstairs, I am here to give such assistance as I can from a legal standpoint to ensure that if this Bill reaches the Statute Book, it will do so in a workable form, and I have no desire to give any suggestion or lead in regard to any decision which the House may desire to reach on the question of principle.

Mr. Buchanan: Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman his own personal view?

The Lord Advocate: I am afraid that I cannot separate my personality from my official duty on this occasion to state the law.

Mr. Logan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us, as a point of law, whether, if divorce is granted on the grounds set out here, and recovery takes place, the divorced person would be justified in going to the court and asking that the divorce should be rescinded?

The Lord Advocate: I have no hesitation in assuring the hon. Member in the same sense as the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) did. That possibility is not open. A divorce decree cannot be rescinded on such a ground. Once a divorce is granted, the matter is finished.

Mr. Logan: Though there has been recovery.

The Lord Advocate: There are two points to which I wish to refer briefly. The senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) mentioned the number of married persons who have been confined in asylums for five years or more and the number who recover after five years' confinement. When the Bill was in Committee great interest was expressed on all sides in these figures and as it was I who was able to obtain the figures for the Committee, may I take this opportunity of repeating them to the House in a very brief form? The figures which I was able to get, show that at any given time, on an average, there are confined in asylums in Scotland 2,400 or 2,500 married persons who have been so confined for at least five years I give round figures because the number varies from year to year. Of that number, approximately 27 recover after five years, but it is necessary to analyse that figure of 27, having regard to the marital conditions


and ages of the persons who recover. The number is then reduced to about 22 whose husbands or wives are still alive. If we examine the ages we find that something like 13 are over 50 and six are over 60, so that whatever surmises may be made as to the probabilities or otherwise of persons desiring divorce after a certain age, this, at least, is clear and it is an objective fact which I put before hon. Members, leaving them to draw their own deductions.
There are, on one side of the picture, 2,500 persons whose partners have been confined in asylums for five years or more. On the other hand the average number of persons to recover after five years' confinement is of the order of a dozen or so. The ratio is about 12 or 15 to 2,500. That is a fact which the House will bear in mind. The only other fact on which I venture to touch as a legal matter is the interesting point brought out by the junior Member for Dundee with regard to the somewhat anomalous position, from a lawyer's point of view, which would arise if insanity were a ground of divorce in England and not a ground of divorce in Scotland. The result, whether we like it or not, would be that there would not only be one law for the rich and one for the poor in that respect, but one law for the man and another for the woman. I have endeavoured, without, I hope, indicating my own view, to place before the House the legal aspect of the matter, and I leave it now to the decision of the House.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: The Lord Advocate has spoken officially. Although I stand at the opposite Box, I do not speak officially, but I speak here to-night for myself, and, as I understand it, all hon. Members in the House are free to-night to take the decision that their conscience entitles them to take. I want to observe, arising out of what the Lord Advocate has said, that I think it is a pity, when we are dealing with a great social subject like this, that these two Bills which have been before this House recently, the English Bill and this Bill, should have been private Members' Bills and only looked at, considered, and to some extent licked into shape by the Government after they had been before this House. I do not think that the Engilsh Bill was free from flaws, although I think in certain respects

it is better than the Bill which we are now discussing, especially in relation to this particular Amendment. On the general issue, I oppose the idea of divorce for illness, although it is mental illness, on the same ground as, I think, anyone would oppose release from the marriage bond because of physical illness, although, as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has stressed so strongly, there must be, and are, occasions when physical conditions from which one spouse is suffering just as definitely render that spouse incapable of carrying out marital responsibilities as any mental condition and the placing of the individual in a mental institution
I now come to this Amendment, and my reason, within the ambit of this Bill, for opposing the inclusion in it of a description such as "incurable insanity" is that I object to its being stated in such a bald way without any qualification or indication at this particular point in the Bill of what does actually constitute "incurable insanity." I have in mind also the fact that when we come to the definition Clause, defining the words "incurable insanity," it is something that is left to a presumption, and "incurable insanity" is presumed, under the terms of this Bill, if one of the partners to the marriage has been confined in a mental institution for a period of upwards of five years. There are other considerations placing the responsibility for defence from the charge of incurable insanity upon someone acting for the person declared to be insane, and I think that is putting the onus on the wrong person and dealing with the matter in the wrong way. From that point of view the English Bill is on better lines, and I hope the House will see the desirability of giving effect to the Amendment.
I want to deal with the figures which the Lord Advocate has given as I understand he gave them to the Committee when it was impossible for me to be present. He mentioned the figure 22 and by various means he brought it down to 13 per annum. I want to point out—and this argument might appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) that either of those numbers would have saved from destruction the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. I am anxious to save that 22 or the 13, whatever the number is, from the terrible position in which they will be


placed if we leave the Bill as it is, and I hope there will be such an element of pity and such a desire to do the right thing by those who would be injured that the House will support the Amendment.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said, in effect, that he was not against insanity being a ground of divorce, but that he was going to vote against the Amendment because there should be a separate Bill to deal with the question. My knowledge of Parliament tells me that if you want to do a thing you should do it when the opportunity occurs, and that if it is not done then it is never done at all. The hon. Member must either be against insanity being a ground of divorce, or for it, and he cannot shove off a decision in a cowardly fashion by saying that it should be dealt with in some other kind of Bill. If we were discussing the Second Reading of the Bill I doubt whether I should vote for it, but we are not discussing the Second Reading, nor are we discussing the question of five years or seven years. We are discussing the question of incurable insanity. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) said that even if the period were 30 years it should not be a ground of divorce. Imagine the case of a man whose wife is in an asylum and he is living in a working-class house. We might say that he ought to have a good house, but the Under-Secretary for Scotland practically stated the other day that even with the best town council in the world Glasgow's housing condition would not be altered for at least 20 or 30 years. Suppose a man is left with children and he lives in a single end or a two-roomed house. He has to go to work and he has to have a woman in. If she is a single woman she will sooner or later, by the force of a hundred circumstances, be almost compelled to live with the man.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Member aware that by doing that the man would make it impossible for himself to get a divorce?

Mr. Buchanan: That is not the case, and if the hon. Member would apply a little intelligence to the point he would see so at once. That has nothing to do with my argument. I was dealing with

the case of a man left with two bairns of four and five and living in a kitchen. Let me say, first of all, that consideration for the children comes before consideration for the woman or the man, and the first thing the husband does is to look round for help from the brother of his wife, or his own brother, or his own sister. If he is lucky then he has got a solution of his difficulties. Otherwise, he has no solution to his problem, because his children have to be fed, clothed and reared. He has to get in a woman to look after them. They are living in a room and kitchen. Gossip will marry them; gossip will scandalise them. [Interruption.] Suppose the wife is divorced and she afterwards comes out of the asylum. She can get no pension, the woman who cohabits can get no pension, nor can the children get any pension. They are permanently left out.
I would point out that this Bill deals with other things than incurable insanity, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) should take up such a stand on that matter. There is the power to grant divorce for desertion after three years. That is a far greater power. To prove desertion it is only necessary for the wife to go into court and prove that for three years the husband has refused to live with her. It is fifty times more difficult to prove insanity. In the first place, you have to get certificates from doctors before the wife can be put into the asylum. Then, every six months, the Board of Control re-examine the case; and at the end of the allotted period before divorce can be claimed the board have to be satisfied about the incurable insanity of the wife. Desertion is the simplest of things to prove. Further, divorce can be claimed for cruelty. Cruelty does not necessarily mean that men are bad. I do not believe that one husband in 20 or one in 1,000 is deliberately cruel to his wife. The cruelty arises, generally speaking, through over-indulgence in alcohol. However, if the wife can prove cruelty against her husband she can get a divorce, although it is known that in far less than five years—in 12 months even—a man can change from a drunken sot into a quite respectable citizen. All the same he may be divorced—although cruelty can be cured in far more cases than insanity.
An insanity Clause has been put into the English Bill. One of the things


which has caused me most distress is this cohabitation, this bringing up of children in what, as the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) says, are looked upon by the great mass of the people as immoral and sinful surroundings. All you are doing is forcing decent people to cohabit, and forcing children to become illegitimate. An illegitimate child in Scotland can become legitimate in every case but this. Even if the woman dies, the child cannot become legitimate. For the sake of the children, who are terribly unjustly dealt with, I very hesitatingly came into the Committee against the Bill. Having regard to the discussion and to the great mass of facts, I shall certainly vote for the Bill as it stands.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Logan: Up to now only Scottish Members have taken part in the discussion, but it is an important Debate on a matter of principle and I cannot allow the occasion to go by without expressing my opinion. What we are asked to do is to insert the words, "is incurably insane," but no one has been able to define "incurably insane." We are reminded that there is a difference between the English and the Scottish law. A fortnight age two young couples wished for a divorce. One was supposed to be insane and the other to be sane. The young man was 85 years of age and the young woman, who was insane, was 84. Under the English law divorce took place and in a week's time there was a marriage and those two young people are joined together in holy wedlock. Now we have the sentiment expressed—if I were outside I should call it by some other phrase, but I have to use Parliamentary language and be polite.
We are told about the poor young wife who goes into the mental home and leaves a small family, and about the poor loving husband who, I believe, did join in a sacrament that united them both together, and not an ordinary contract by a blacksmith or a boilermaker, or something of that kind. He agreed that they should be joined together. If we believe in marriage we must believe that they were joined in holy wedlock and assumed all the responsibilities of married life. There are four or five children, and because his true and faithful spouse breaks down and goes into a mental home he, poor soul,

wants her to be regarded as incurably insane and he wants the right to take proceedings for divorce. I asked whether it would be ground for divorce if she were considered incurably insane and the Lord Advocate answered, "Yes."
When I asked, suppose this woman came out cured and came home to her lovely little bairns and to her devoted husband, and was most anxious to see that affection were given to the children, and that this happened perhaps one, two or four months after the other spouse had married, I was informed that the marmiage of four months' duration could not be annulled and that the poor faithful wife who had broken down with the stress of family life would have to go away because the lady-love had deposed the mother. The father could keep to himself his new wife and there could be no going back to the courts, since rescission could not take place.
I have heard what was said about the wife who had a practically insane mind; I am speaking of Catherine of Aragon. I have heard a philosophy that I never thought would be expressed in the House of Commons in regard to the demand for divorce. I suppose it is no use going back to the dark ages, to the time when a sacrament of marriage was supposed to be binding on men and women. According to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) we are living in a more enlightened age in which modern thought and progression advocate that the demand for divorce ought to be agreed to. Every one of these accommodation schemes that we bring into force shows our public assistance committees that these kinds of arrangement create the mental state which we are trying to avoid. If we had proper order and if the laws of this country were administered properly and we were able to define what marriage is, even though we are not able to define what incurable insanity is, we should be able to understand whether marriage is binding or not. We would be able to understand the responsibility of family life.

Mr. McGovern: The hon. Member mentioned me. I did not want to take him off his theme, but talking about enlightened opinion I said that we were living in an age when we should take stock of the advancement and enlightenment


outside, and that we had to represent that opinion and not minorities and sections that tried to impose their will upon the majority. In relation to marriage, I said what is a principle to me; I would not keep two people tied in marriage who had no affection for one another, because that would be prostitution.

Mr. Logan: This is different from keeping two people living together as man and wife. If the easy arrangement which the hon. Member would bring into the married life were acted upon, I am afraid that every week-end, whether in England or in Scotland, most of them would be leaving home. Then there is the question of the issue of the marriage. I do not know that Members of this House can assume the responsibility of declaring that, where there is a family, the House has any right to decide that the bond of marriage shall be broken because illness comes into the family. One hon. Member spoke about diseases which may result in paralysis. You do not say that they have to go. Is there any hon. Member in this House who, if they had a boy or girl at home who was in a state in which they would be of no use to anybody living, but who had life in them, that would not give of his best to one that was broken in his own home? And when it comes to the question of the partnership in life, which is supposed to be binding and on which the nation of Scotland takes its stand, the sanctity of the home has to be protected, because without purity of home life there can be no England or Scotland either. In my humble opinion, this is giving to those who want licence the opportunity to avoid the responsibility. No honourable man or woman, when the partner in life breaks down, will take the risk, during the lifetime of that partner, of taking another, when it is possible that the wife or husband who has broken down may come back to the home. While there is life, and the person has been faithful, the loyalty of the man or woman to a faithful spouse ought to hold until death.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: I do not want to give a silent vote on this Amendment, but I shall not detain the House for many minutes. This matter was very fully

discussed in the Scottish Standing Committee, and that Committee dealt with the Amendment in a very decisive manner. I do not know what the House may decide with regard to it, but I certainly shall not support the Amendment. I voted against it in the Committee, and nothing that has been said here this evening has changed the opinion I formed while the matter was being discussed then. I listened with very great interest to the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), both to-night and in the Committee. The hon. Lady made a very eloquent appeal to the Committee and to the House to support the Amendment, but her eloquence failed to convince the Committee that it was advisable to omit this particular provision from the Measure. I am keeping my hands free so far as subsequent Amendments are concerned, but, so far as this Amendment is concerned, I agree with the general principle that insanity should be a ground for divorce. I hope that hon. Members who have not the same interest as Scottish Members in this Measure will note the point made by the Lord Advocate, who drew attention to the fact that in the English Measure provision was made for divorce on the grounds of insanity, and that it will be somewhat anomalous if there is not some provision of the same sort for Scotland. On the grounds of uniformity, we are entitled to ask hon. Members who supported that provision in the English Measure to support it for Scotland.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: We never divided on that in the House of Commons. We divided on the period—five years or three years, or whatever it was.

Mr. Buchanan: But you agreed to the principle.

Mr. Watson: The Scottish Grand Committee divided on this principle. The point I am making is that in the English Measure there is provision for divorce on the ground of insanity; and we who are opposed to the Amendment take the view that the same provision should be in the Scottish Measure. I believe that divorce should be granted on the ground of insanity, and it is in support of that principle that I intend to vote to-night.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. James Brown: Mr. James Brown rose——

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Brown: I am not going to give a silent vote, either. I am in favour of the Amendment, and why I should not say so, just as other hon. Members say they are against it, I do not know. I support the Amendment on religious grounds. To me it is a most amazing spectacle to see this House taking this thing as calmly as they do to-night. The most disgusting business of all is the argument that has been made against the Amendment that when there are two children in the house

Division 297.]
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Adams, S.V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Alexender, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gardner, B. W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gibson R. (Greenook)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Anstrtuher-Gnay, W. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Oliver, G. H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro,W.)
Paling, W.


Barr, J.
Griffiths. J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Batey, J.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pearson, A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mh'rw'll, N.W.)
Petherick, M.


Benson, G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrenee, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hambro, A. V.
Price, M. P.


Bossom, A. C.
Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln)


Broad, F. A.
Harbord, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bromfield, W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hayday, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Bull, B. B.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Burghley, Lord
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rowlands, G.


Burke, W. A.
Higgs, W. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Russell, Sir Alexender


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hollins, A.
Salt, E. W.


Chater, D.
Holmes, J. S.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hunter, T.
Soott, Lord William


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Jagger, J.
Selley, H. R.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Spens, W. P


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Storey, S.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Daggar, G.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Dalton, H.
Lawsan, J. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lee, F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Dobbie, W.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Doland, G. F.
Liddall, W. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Donner, P. W.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Thurtle, E.


Duncan, J. A. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGovern, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McKle, J. H.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maenamara, Major J. R. J.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Emery, J. F.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Everard, W. L.
Marsden, Commander A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Fildes, Sir H.
Marshall, F.



Findlay, Sir E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Mr. Erskine-Hill and Mr.


Foot, D. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.)
Graham Kerr.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Banfield, J. W.
Gallacher, W.
Hardie, Agnes


Brawn, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Kelly, W. T.

and the accommodation is limited and a woman comes in, immorality takes place. I do not want to keep the House at all, but I thought it right that I should also say that I am not giving a silent vote, and that I am in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 31.

Logan, D. G.
Poole, C. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Procter, Major H. A.
Westwood, J.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)



Magnay, T.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Mathers, G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Mr. Kirkwood and Miss


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Tinker, J. J.
Horsbrugh.


Parkinson, J. A.
Tomlinson, G.

11.19 p.m.

Captain McEwen: I beg to move, in page line 15, after "insane," to insert:
and has been continuously under care and treatment as an insane person for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the action for divorce.
I am moving the Amendment in a form slightly different from that on the Order Paper, so that it may be more intelligible. One object of the Amendment is to provide one of the safeguards which some of us think are strangely absent from the Bill as it stands. This Amendment is on the exact lines of the words which appear in the English Act. In Section 2 (10) these words appear:
Is incurably of unsound mind and has been continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
We can see no reason why these words are omitted from the present Bill. To my mind, this is a very weak point in the Bill, and it is with the object of strengthening it that the Amendment is moved.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I beg to second the Amendment.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: In the course of a very long discussion in the Committee stage every effort was made by the promoters of the Bill to safeguard what we thought were the interests of the insane person, but we could not accept an Amendment of this sort. The reason why we ask the House to be consistent and retain the Bill in its present form is because we do not think it would be workable in any other form. It has been said that the provision is working in England. On that I should like to say this. I have made careful inquiries, and find that there have been no such cases dealt with in the English courts, and I think it is early yet to speak of what is the situation in England. I can speak with greater knowledge of the Scottish courts, and I can assure hon. Members that if English courts decide in one way it does not follow that Scottish courts will do the same. Even

where the laws are supposed to be the same the Lord Advocate has shared with me the experience of seeing the theories of one country being set aside by the supreme court of the House of Lords, and a direct conflict between English courts and Scottish courts. I feel sure that hon. Members will share the view that this provision, properly safeguarded, will make the Bill workable in Scotland and will make it apply to the poorer classes of the community equally with the rich. I will explain what I mean by that. As a result of representations made to us while the Bill was before the Committee, we decided that it was better to safeguard the position of the insane person by inserting a Clause making it incumbent upon the court in every case to provide what we call a curator ad litem, who is an officer appointed by the court, to look after the interests of the insane person.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Will my hon. and learned Friend make clear who will pay for that officer? Will the poor defendant have to pay?

Mr. Erskine Hill: No, the court will make rules of court which will cover that, and I think the Lord Advocate will bear me out when I say that there is no question of the poor person having to pay. Further, with the consent of the Board of Control in Scotland, it was made incumment upon the Board of Control to give to the court, on being required by the court, a full account of the condition of the insane person. Those steps were taken, and they met with the approval of some of those who had objected. They were put down in the form of an Amendment, in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence), who had been very strongly against the Bill as it stood, was associated, and I think several other hon. Members who had taken similar views at an earlier stage were fully satisfied by the Amendment. Anything of a reasonable sort in which I could concur, I have been prepared to do, but I put it to the House that I think this will make the Bill workable in Scotland, and that if we were to agree to the


Amendment, there would be a very considerable danger that, whatever the English courts are doing or may do, it would make the Bill inoperative in Scotland. I appeal to the House, which is agreed on principle to the insertion of incurable lunacy as a cause for divorce, to enable us to make that principle workable.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I am very sorry that I have to disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill). I listened with some interest to the end of the Debate on the last Amendment, and I regret very much that, during the passage of the Bill last year, my fellow countrymen did not come to the assistance of those of us who tried to resist the introduction of insanity as a ground for divorce. That ground was accepted after a great deal of discussion last year, but it was accepted subject to the proviso that there was always to be a period of five years before action was to be taken in order to obtain a divorce on that ground. I listened with great care to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend, but I cannot see any ground for suggesting that in my native land the Bill will be more unworkable if the House takes exactly the same line as it took in connection with the English Bill last year, when it insisted that there should be a period of five years before a petition was filed for divorce on this ground.
I agree that it is impossible to obtain absolute uniformity of laws in England and in Scotland, but if the two countries start with Bills in the same terms, there is more hope of obtaining uniformity of laws than there is if they start with Bills in different terms. Therefore, I cannot see why what was inserted in the English Bill last year should not be put in the Scottish Bill this year. I would add that, with regard to the special Clause which is contained later in the Bill, I am bound to say that it does not seem to me that the interests of the lunatic's spouse will be better looked after under that procedure than in the English courts by the officers who have regard to the interests of the lunatic. Subject to that, I cannot see why the courts in both countries should not start on exactly the same lines, and I hope the House will insist that there shall be the period of five years

before a petition of divorce can be filed on this ground.

11.30 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The subject raised by this Amendment is one on which I am bound to intervene, in the exercise of my duty to endeavour to see that this Bill reaches the Statute Book in a workable form. The House has just decided by a very large majority to accept the principle that incurable insanity shall be a ground for divorce in Scotland, but it does not necessarily follow that because England decided to achieve that end by one particular method, Scotland must, forthwith, adopt an identical method. This Bill has been framed with the deliberate object of securing a more effective working of that principle that incurable insanity is a ground for divorce than has been achieved in the Matrimonial Causes Act. According to my information, experience in England, although it has not yet gone very far, has at least suggested that the terms of the Matrimonial Causes Act are, in this respect, capable of improvement. Difficulties have arisen, and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill), that difficulties will unquestionably arise in Scotland if this Amendment is carried.
I wish to make it plain that it is of set purpose and with the object of giving effect to the principle to which the House has just agreed, that it is proposed to use here the words "incurably insane" and then proceed by a subsequent Clause to define what shall and shall not be deemed by the court to be "incurable insanity." If this Amendment be carried, the Courts in Scotland, beyond a doubt, will draw this conclusion—that the mere fact that a person has been continuously confined in an institution, as an insane person, for five years is not enough to establish incurable insanity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I observe from the applause of the hon. Lady the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), and those besides her, that they are evidently supporting the Amendment in the belief that, by so doing, they will achieve a reversal of the decision which the House has just given. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The purpose of the Bill being to make this principle work, I suggest that that is a very opposite result at


which to aim. The effect of the Amendment would be to require the court first to be satisfied of the five years continuous care and treatment, as an insane person, in an institution and then to embark on a second inquiry, namely, whether the person who has been so confined is or is not incurably insane. At that stage will arise that same conflict of medical and expert opinion to which reference has been made—and which, I understand has given rise and will continue to give rise to difficulties and embarrassment in England. I cannot, without transgressing your Rulings, Mr. Speaker, develop the alternatives which the Bill contains, but I submit that the acceptance of the Amendment would go far to defeat the decision which the House has taken. I urge the House strongly, in the interests of the efficacy of this Measure, to reject this Amendment and to allow the scheme of the Bill, designed to carry out the principle which this House has already accepted, to stand in the form in which it is at present.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that five years in a mental institution is to presuppose incurable insanity, without any other test?

The Lord Advocate: The answer is "No," as a perusal of Clause 6 will indicate, but what I am saying is that the converse proposition would inevitably follow from the acceptance of this Amendment namely, that five years' continuous detention in an asylum or other institution would not amount to incurable insanity but that over and above that, independent investigation, with expert witnesses, would have to be embarked upon.

Mr. Mathers: That is the point that I am trying to make. The second case that the Lord Advocate mentions is not certain to be carried through under the terms of this Bill?

11.37 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am a little surprised to hear the speech of the Lord Advocate, because I thought, when we were discussing the last Amendment, that one of the strongest points, which persuaded many hon. Members to vote as they did in favour of incurable insanity being put

into the Bill as a ground for divorce was the great inconvenience and difficulties that would arise if we had different laws for England and Scotland in this connection. On this occasion my hon. Friend who shares with me the representation of Dundee (Mr. Foot) almost persuaded me that he was right and I was wrong, because he sketched out to us very clearly what the procedure in England was, and he told us of the great care that was taken and how carefully the whole thing was gone into, and I am certain that he persuaded many hon. Members here that it would be a good plan for Scotland to have the same thing. He suggested, and the Lord Advocate also suggested, the difficulties of having two laws, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee also pointed out that we need not be nervous of putting in incurable insanity, because the procedure in England was so careful and that therefore the alarms that many of us had felt and a great deal of the anxiety that had been expressed could be allayed because of that procedure.
I want to say to the Lord Advocate, who thought that if I supported the Amendment it would be because it would prevent divorce on the ground of incurable insanity taking place, that I should have preferred not to have that in, but we have decided now that incurable insanity is to be one of the grounds for divorce, and I only ask, what hon. Members asked on the last Amendment, that we should make it as sure as possible and that we should have safeguards. Many hon. Members said on the last Amendment that although they would vote for it and thought it right that this should be a ground for divorce, they also felt that there ought to be proper safeguards. I know that we cannot now discuss the procedure on Clause 6, but this is the moment when we should take our stand, because now, on this Amendment, we can have the safeguards that were put into the English Bill last year. On Clause 6 difficulties will arise. As we have decided that incurable insanity is to be a cause of divorce, I would urge the House to provide the same safeguards as those provided in England in order to see that as far as possible mistakes should not occur, and that justice and the chance of the right defence should be given to that most helpless person, the person who has been certified as insane.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I have not intervened before in the debate to-night, and I do so now in order to make an appeal to the Lord Advocate and the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill). I would ask them to consider this question again. I supported the inclusion of the incurable insanity provision, because I believed it was necessary in a Bill of this kind, but I would ask that every care and protection should be given because of the dreadful consequences of even one or two mistakes. Considerable feeling has been shown in the debate on this question, not because hon. Members were antagonistic to one another, but because they feared that there was a risk of mistakes being made, even in isolated cases, which would ruin and blight the lives of the victims. It is the duty of the House to protect exceptional cases. I do not believe any hon. Member thinks that the Clause will be unworkable if these words are inserted. I believe that they will make the Bill more palatable to many people who have different opinions on this question because they will ease their fears with regard to possible injustices. This Bill remedies a state of affairs which has already been remedied in England, and I would appeal to the Lord Advocate not to be afraid once in a while to do as England has done. After careful consideration the House has decided this question as it affects England, and if it has decided that five years is good enough for England, surely the Lord Advocate cannot come forward and say that the same provision would make the Scottish Bill unworkable. We all know that insanity is a subject on which medical opinion differs, and in view of this and of the great importance of the cases to the individuals concerned, surely it is not too much to ask for a five-year period in order that all concerned may be absolutely certain of the incurable state of the insane person. Medical science is making great strides. Insanity is only spoken of as incurable because medical science has not yet been able to cure it, but incurable complaints are continually being brought into the category of curable, and in a few years' time science may be able to effect cures in what are to-day spoken of as cases of incurable insanity. Because of that possibility and to allay fears I would

appeal to those responsible for the Bill to accept the Amendment, so that we may be sure that every care will be taken to see that no injustice is done.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Foot: Would it be in order on this Amendment to refer to Clause 6 and to the Amendment to that Clause, because if this Amendment is carried the Amendment to Clause 6 will obviously fall to the ground?

Mr. Speaker: There is a strict rule that we should refer to only one Amendment at a time, but these Amendments are so intermixed that it would probably be for the convenience of the House that they should be discussed together.

Mr. T. Johnston: I suggest that it would be desirable to consider not only Clause 6 but Clause 3, because Clause 6 cannot function properly without Clause 3.

Mr. Foot: I do not want to suggest that we should forestall the discussion on Clause 6. I simply asked whether it would be in order to refer to the proposed Amendment to Clause 6, because it is difficult to discuss the Amendment before us without referring to the other Amendment.

Mr. Mathers: I hesitate to appear to be at variance with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) but when the Debate started on the first Amendment your Deputy in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, was asked whether there could be one discussion referring to a number of Amendments. Objection was taken to that course, and we have been adhering strictly to the rule of dealing with each Amendment as it stands, and certain speeches have been made on the Amendment before us under those limiting conditions.

Mr. Speaker: I think the request made to me concerned not so much the Amendments as the Clauses. Permission to refer to Clause 6 was suggested and the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) suggested Clause 3 as well. There is no Amendment to Clause 3, and if it suits the convenience of the House I see no objection when dealing with this Amendment to referring to Clauses 6 and 3.

Miss Horsbrugh: Before the Ruling was given I understood that we could not refer to Clause 6, and those who speak on the Amendment have to speak in restricted terms.

Mr. Davidson: Did not the Lord Advocate say he would like to refer to Clause 6 but he could not do so?

Mr. Foot: We are considering whether we should have the alternative contained in the English Act or that in the Bill. If we were to challenge the proposal now put before the House the other procedure proposed in Clause 6 would fall to the ground. Having listened to the Debate with very great care I think there is a very strong case to be made for the Amendment. I speak as a supporter of the Bill and I spoke very strongly against the last Amendment but, having listened to the hon. and learned Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) and the Lord Advocate, I am at a loss to understand in what difficulty the Scottish courts will find themselves in interpreting these words. If they were carried and put into the Scottish law, all that would be necessary for any petitioner who wanted to get a divorce decree on the ground of insanity would be to prove that the respondent had been continuously under care and treatment for five years immediately preceding the action. I should not have thought that was a very difficult thing to prove. You only have to call the person in whose custody the respondent has been. The other part of the requirement will be the words "incurably insane." They are already inserted in the Bill by the decision we have first taken and whatever decision we may come to on later Amendments, the Scottish courts will be under the necessity that the English courts have already been under of determining the meaning to be attached to those words.

Mr. Mathers: There is a definition in Clause 6 showing that five years in a mental institution constitutes presumption of "incurable insanity."

Mr. Foot: I do not think that is quite so. I think there is no definition in this Bill any more than there is in the English Bill. As a matter of fact, the words have been interpreted as meaning "irrecoverably insane," and that is the

meaning that has been put upon them so far in the cases that have been tried. If the Amendment were carried, it would be necessary for the petitioner to prove, firstly the five years' care and treatment in the institution and, secondly, the fact that the respondent was incurably insane. I am not discussing what precise meaning the courts in Scotland will attach to those words but, if this Amendment is rejected, the alternative one has to consider is contained in Clause 6. I have consulted with the hon. and learned Member for N. Edinburgh and we are unhappy about the form of Clause 6. I do not object to the first part of Sub-section (2), which makes it necessary for the five years' care and treatment to be proved; that is what is proposed in this Amendment. But I feel a great deal of misgiving about the second part:
and where such care and treatment as aforesaid is proved the defender shall, unless the contrary is shown to the satisfaction of the Court, be presumed to be incurably insane.
That means that, if the judge has heard the evidence on both sides, and has heard the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and of counsel for the respondent who is instructed on behalf of the curator ad litem, and if he is then left in doubt, he has to determine that doubt in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. That is the position which is going to be created if the House decides on the alternative contained in Clause 6.
If I am right in saying that we have to decide between the Amendment and Subsection (2) of Clause 6, it is not just a question of making some subtle distinction between English and Scottish courts; we have to decide at this stage the vital question where the onus shall lie. As I endeavoured to show on the last Amendment, I do not want to place undue impediments in the way of any petitioner who comes along and says, "My wife—or husband—is incurably insane, and I can show that that is the case." We are all agreed that it is a very serious matter to insist that the burden of proof shall be laid in each case on the person who seeks to set up incurable insanity as a ground of divorce, and for that reason I propose to support the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill), speaking


against the acceptance of this Amendment, said that it would make the Bill inoperative. He did not, however, appreciate——

Mr. Ede: On a point of Order. Did not the hon. and gallant Member second the Amendment we are now discussing?

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I did second the Amendment, intending to ask to be allowed by the leave of the House to make a speech. I only wanted to second the Amendment then, and just jumped up for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member, having seconded the Amendment, has exhausted his right to speak.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Can I speak by leave of the House?

Hon. Members: No.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I do not desire to detain the House at any length, but I wish to appeal to the promoter of the Measure and to the Lord Advocate not to respond to what has been put before them by my hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Davidson), and not to resile from the position they have taken up. I think the important thing to observe is that these very words, with but a slight transformation, are taken from Clause 6, and when an appeal is made by the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill that the greatest care should be exercised, I would point out that not only are these words in Clause 6, and not only is there the provision in Clause 3, but you have a further provision for the exercise of greater care and far greater investigation than is possible under this Clause.

Miss Horsbrugh: I was speaking under difficulties and I did not make myself very clear. I mentioned the safeguards which were held to be required. If I had been allowed to mention Clause 6, I should have said that the fact that five years was mentioned in that Clause was no safeguard at all, because the safeguard is taken away by the onus being placed on the insane person of defending.

Mr. Barr: In reply to that observation I wish to make clear what is my view of

the position. You cannot get away from it that there is a certain presumption of insanity because of the fact that the person has been under continual treatment in an institution for some five years, but the whole presumption is taken away in the second part of the Clause and you are back on equal terms. Clause 6 (2) says distinctly:—
unless the contrary is shown
That allows medical opinion to come in and allows the court to be advised by medical men that this condition is curable, that the day may come when it is quite curable and that they cannot say in any case that it is incurable.
In Committee, the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) said, if I may recall it, that he would never put his hand to certify that anyone was incurably insane. That is what I was emphasising. That is possible, and there is a complete safeguard here that we may come to a point at which medical science has found a cure and is able to say that no case is incurable. That is arguable, and the whole subject is opened up. Here we have the skeleton of what we have in the full provisions of Clause 3 and more particularly in the full Clause 6. My hon. Friend argued in favour of five years; I would not like to do him the injustice of saying that he did not read the Bill, but it seemed to me that when five years was in Clause 6, there was no need to argue in favour of five years.

Mr. Davidson: As the hon. Gentleman persists in referring to Clause 6, may I be permitted to point out to him that I have read the whole Bill, including Clause 6, but that, out of courtesy, and because of the time and because of the Rulings of the Chair, I refrained from mentioning that Clause. I had not the same opportunity as my hon. Friend is evidently taking advantage of.

Mr. Barr: It is not my habit to take advantage either of an opportunity or of a colleague. In the comment I made I used the argument that there was no need to argue for five years when it was in the Bill already, and that that five years had lapsed. I hope that my point is clear that if we adopt this Amendment we cut out some other most important safeguards that are in Clause 3.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Division No. 298.]
AYES.
[12.5 a.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Poole, C. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Procter, Major H. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Banfield, J. W.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Ritson, J.


Burghley, Lord
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Burke, W. A.
Hambro, A. V.
Salt, E. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Spens. W. P.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S)
Higgs, W. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Holmes, J. S.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Tomlinson, G.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lawson, J. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Everard, W. L.
Maonamara, Major J. R. L.
Westwood, J.


Foot, D. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.



Furness, S. N.
Mathers, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gallacher, W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Captain McEwen and Miss




Horsbrough.




NOES.


Alexander, Rl. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Parker, J.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Petherick, M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hannah, I. C.
Price, M. P.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Benson, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bossom, A. C.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Bromfield, W.
Hunter, T.
Scott, Lord William


Bull, B B.
Jagger, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leach, W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dalton, H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McKie, J. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Marshall, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Fildes Sir H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



Findlay, Sir E.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Erskine Hill and Mr. Graham


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Paling, W.
Kerr.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Mathers: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where the ground for the action is incurable insanity the Court shall not be bound to grant a decree of divorce and may dismiss the action if in the opinion of the Court the pursuer has during the marriage been guilty of such wilful neglect or misconduct as has conduced to the insanity.
As the hour is very late, and I understand that at least the spirit of this protective Amendment is to be accepted by the promoters of the Bill, there is no need to take any time at all in urging the Amendment upon the House. I believe that I require the guidance of the Lord Advocate as to the exact wording of the Amendment. I do not suffer from the disadvantage of being a lawyer, and, therefore, the wording may not quite be in keeping

The House divide: Ayes,51; Noes,74.

with legal ideas. Consequently I ask for the guidance of the Lord Advocate as to the exact framing of the Amendment, and I hope that you will be kind enough, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to allow us, if necessary, to put the Amendment into proper form.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out "for the," and to insert "of," and in line 2, to leave out "and may dismiss the action."
I think that it may save the time of the House if I say at once that we are prepared to accept the Amendment in principle. The only suggestion I would make is that we should make it conform to what is the practice in Scotland where the court does not dismiss an action once the merits are reached but grants a decree


of absolvitor. I have had the benefit of consulting my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, so that the House might have the advantage of his opinion as well my own, and I therefore move the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It will give the court full power to grant an appeal and meet the case which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) is anxious to meet. I think the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the Amendment in that shape, because it gives effect to the principle to which he wishes to give effect.

Mr. Mathers: I am prepared to accept the Amendment to my Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert:
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (d) of the foregoing subsection the defender's guilt of sodomy or bestiality shall be held to be proved if an extract of a conviction therefor in any part of the United Kingdom is produced, and the application of such conviction to the defender is admitted or proved.
The sole object of this Amendment is to prevent the whole evidence in sodomy

Division No. 299.]
AYES.
[12.19 a.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Marshall, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mathers, G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gunston, Capt. Sir O. W.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hail, G. H. (Aberdare)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Benson, G.
Hambro, A. V.
Oliver, G. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Paling, W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Parker, J.


Bossom, A. C.
Harbord, A.
Petherick, M,


Bremfield, W.
Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrenee, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bull, B. B.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Poole, C. C.


Burghley, Lord
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.


Burke, W. A.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Procter, Major H. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Higgs, W. F.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Holmes, J. S.
Ridley, G.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florenee
Ritson, J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hunter, T.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Daggar, G.
Jagger, J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Dalton, H.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Dobbie, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sait, E. W


Duckworth. W. R. (Moss Side)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Seott, Lord William


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Ede, J. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Everard, W. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Fildes, Sir H.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Findlay, Sir E.
McKie, J. H.
Thurtle, E


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Foot, D. M.
Manningnam-Buller, Sir M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

or bestiality cases being gone over in the civil court. It is obviously undesirable to do so, as it would lead to unpleasant consequences both in the sort of evidence that would have to came out in court for the second time, and because it is obviously wrong when the case has been tried once to go over the same evidence again.

Mr. Graham Kerr: I beg to second the Amendment.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Robert Gibson: This proposal goes right against the immemorial practice in Scotland with regard to the procedure in divorce cases. Invariably proof is demanded and is required by the court before divorce is granted. What may take place in a criminal court if, without grounds for doing so, a man pleads "guilty" to a charge of this kind? The judge of the court of session will be bound to pronounce the decree of divorce. Such a case may not happen very often, but unfortunately injustice would be done, and there would be a complete violation of that general principle requiring proof in consistorial actions in Scotland. I cannot agree to the course that is being taken, and I must oppose the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 6.

Watson, W. McL.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)



Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Windsor, W, (Hull, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wells, Sir Sydney
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Mr. Erskine Hill and Mr. Graham


Westwood, J.
Wragg, H.
Kerr.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Spens. W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Cartland, J. R. H.
Tinker, J. J.
Mr. Gibson and Mr. Barr.


Kelly, W. T.
Tomlinson, G.

CLAUSE6.—(Interpretation.)

12.27 a.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out from "person," to the end of the Sub-section.
We have now come to what I think we all agreed, at the beginning of our discussions, was a difficult subject. I think it is partciularly desirable that the onus in the case of a petition for divorce on the ground——

The Lord Advocate: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to whether the point which the hon. Lady proposes to argue has not already been fully covered by the Debate which took place on the earlier Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. Smith)?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I think that point has been a good deal covered in debate, but that does not make it out of order for the hon. Lady to move an Amendment in order, if necessary, to get the feeling of the House on the point she wishes to raise.

Miss Horsbrugh: I know there has been some difficulty in that many hon. Members thought we could not refer to Clause 6, and although the period of five years has been referred to, I do not think that until now we have discussed the subject of where the onus of proof should be. We are discussing a petition of divorce on the ground of incurable insanity. I think that many hon. Members feel, as I do, that the onus of proof should remain, as it does in the English Bill, on the pursuer, the man or woman who is sane and who seeks to have his or her marriage dissolved because his or her spouse lives in an institution owing to insanity, and has been there for five years. I ask hon. Members whether it is right that, as in the Bill at present, the defence should have to be brought by the insane person, or by someone on his or her behalf, who has practically to prove that the insanity is curable.

In the Committee stage the Lord Advocate was asked the meaning of the words "the contrary is shown." It was a case of balancing the evidence, and if the balance of the evidence is even, then, according to this Bill, as it now stands, a divorce must be granted and the person must be stigmatised as incurably insane. I believe hon. Members in all parts of the House will, if they consider this Amendment, support it, because surely it has not been the practice in any other courts to begin by considering that a defender is either guilty or incurably insane and then leave it to the defender to prove the opposite? Is it to go out from this House that in a petition for divorce the defender is the person who has got to bring proof that he can recover with all the difficulties as to proof and all the effects of illness, instead of, as under the English method, the petitioner—the person who is sane, and who is seeking release from marriage because of such insanity? Surely the burden of proof should lie with this last person, and not with the defender, the person who is so helpless?

It has been suggested that in all cases that insane person will be able to do it, but I suggest also that it will be found difficult to substantiate; much outside opinion will have to be called. This is absolutely the crux of the difficulty, and I do appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to decide to-night quite clearly that if there is to be divorce for incurable insanity, as the House has decided, then it shall be for the pursuer—the petitioner, as we say in England—to prove that the defender is an insane person.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Davidson: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the hon. Lady has made out an unanswerable case on this particular question. She is asking that the House should support the unfortunates against those who are more fortunate, and give at least sympathy to the plea of those who


are asking that the persons who are said to be insane shall be placed in the best possible position to defend themselves against what may be unscrupulous and selfish attempts in the future. I support the Amendment in order to clear away misrepresentation and inaccuracies that were thrown to the House in regard to a previous speech of my own on this selfsame question.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I do not propose to repeat the arguments that I used on the previous Clause. This is a different Amendment, only it goes much further. Its purpose is the same as that of a previous Amendment, but it would leave the words "incurably insane" without any definition at all. It would have the effect of entirely wrecking the Bill, and I would ask those who supported my hon. Friend's Amendment in the Lobby to reconsider before they take a step which, in my view, would have this effect. I think the position of this Scottish Bill would be entirely worse than the position in the English Bill if this Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Burke: Would not the retention of these words make it possible for the court to say that after five years' treatment in an institution they could, therefore, be presumed to be incurably insane?

Mr. Erskine Hill: They might make that presumption. That would be putting things in a similar position to the English bill, where it is clearly stated that there should be a five-year period. That, in fact, does give the English courts the power to make such presumption for themselves.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Foot: I regret that on this occasion I cannot agree with the last speaker. I should have thought that if the Clause is left as it stands, it would mean that if the five years' detention and treatment in an institution were proved, the courts in Scotland were then bound to presume incurable insanity unless the contrary could be shown. That is the precise point we are discussing, and it does seem to me to be a very heavy burden, indeed, to cast upon the defender if you say that he or she has got to discharge an onus of that kind. Again, I speak with a good deal of

diffidence in referring to what happens in the Scottish courts, but I entirely fail to see where any difficulty can arise. Suppose the Amendment is carried, what, then, is the situation under this Bill? We have laid it down in Clause I that one of the grounds for divorce shall be incurable insanity, and then we lay down under this Clause that incurable insanity shall not be held to be proved unless there has been five years' detention and treatment. That is to say, we should be in very much the same position as if we had inserted in this Bill the words that were in the English Bill—not, I agree, in precisely the same position, but in a very similar one—in that incurable sanity would be a ground for divorce but it could not be established until the defender had been five years under care and treatment. What is now being proposed would go very much further than. As I said on an earlier Amendment, this is a proposal that where the court, after having heard both sides, is left in a state of doubt, it would have to resolve that doubt in favour of the pursuer and against the defender. That is the situation you would have if the Clause were passed as it now stands.
There is one other consideration. It does seem to be a very dangerous thing to presume that because somebody had been for five years in an asylum under care and treatment, that that person was therefore incurably insane. It may be a very rare case, but it will be within the knowledge of every hon. Member that it does occasionally happen that people are wrongly certified. Such cases have from time to time come to notice, and they have, in fact, been considered by the courts. I ask the House to consider what the situation would be if you had someone who had been wrongly certified, and who, though he was completely sane, had been detained in an institution of this kind for a period of five years. Such things have occurred. I do not say it is likely, but it might happen, and it might be that if you are to leave the onus on the defender under this Measure, obviously in a case like that in which you have a wrongful detention in an asylum for a period of five years, it might be that the person wrongly detained might find that a decree of divorce had been obtained against him or her during this period of detenton. I know that would be a very extreme case, and very unlikely


to arise—certainly not likely to arise if the person charged with the care of the detained person did properly fulfil his duties. Although that is an extreme case, it does show the sort of difficulty which might conceivably occur if you insist on putting the burden on the insane party to the marriage. I speak as a supporter of the Bill and as a supporter of the proposal that incurable insanity should be a ground for divorce; but it does not seem to me that this Bill would lose anything in effect if this Amendment were accepted.

12.41 a.m.

The Lord Advocate: I should like the House to appreciate what, I think, must have become perfectly plain from the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, that the question on which we are now asked to take a decision is identical in every respect with the decision taken a few minutes ago on the Amendment on line 15. The question appears to be as to whether a Scottish Bill is to be framed on the English model, or on better lines with a view to obviating the difficulties that have been encountered and are being encountered. The House has taken a decision on that point, and I am bound to say I cannot understand how on this issue any difference from the wider decision can possibly be raised. As regards the question of the onus of proof, I should like to make it plain that the initial onus of proof will be laid on the petitioner or pursuer up to the point when he establishes five years continuous care and treatment as an insane person. It is on that point that the figures I referred to earlier become relevant, for of 2,500 married persons detained for five years, something in the order of 27 or 22 were discharged as cured.
What we propose in this Clause is that when that stage is reached—the stage of proof of the five years' continuous detention—the law of probabilities, which is all that can be applied in the ascertainment of truth, should be applied in producing the inference of incurable insanity, "unless the contrary is proved." All that means is that if there is adduced on behalf of the defender by the curator ad litem or by relatives, grounds for asking that the normal inference should not be drawn, then that inference is not drawn. If there is

evidence which satisfies that the normal inference should not be drawn, and if that evidence is before the Court, the normal presumption will not prevail. This is part of the scheme of the Bill deliberately designed as an alternative and an improvement upon the scheme of the English Bill, and I venture to suggest that as the House has already accepted the second alternative, it should be consistent and support it.

Mr. Davidson: If this Clause is carried, will it mean that the pursuer in a divorce case on the ground of incurable insanity against a spouse who has been in an asylum for five years or more will have the onus placed upon him or her to prove incurable insanity, or will the onus be on the defender or the defender's relatives to prove non-incurable insanity?

The Lord Advocate: I will answer the question again. The initial onus is on the pursuer to prove incurable insanity which he does by proving five years' continuous detention. The onus then shifts to the defender, and if he or she adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that recovery is probable, in that event the presumption of incurable insanity will not be drawn. There is no mystery in this or, indeed, anything unusual in regard to it. I hope I have made the position clear.

Mr. Davidson: Is it not true to say that the only thing the pursuer needs to do is the preliminary step of proving five years' incarceration?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not make a speech.

11.44 a.m.

Sir Cyril Entwistle: On a point of Order. If the Amendment on which the House has already decided, namely, to insert in this Clause
and has been continuously under care and treatment as an insane person for a period of at least five years immediately preceding action for divorce
was a preliminary Amendment to Subsection two of Clause 6, which it clearly was from the arguments already advanced by the Lord Advocate, are we not now being invited to decide on the same question on which we have already voted? If the Amendment was because of this following Amendment, and they wanted to preserve the five-year term


condition under Sub-section (2) and to omit the presumption which follows in the second part of the Sub-section, it was precisely on that part of Sub-section (2) to which objection is now being taken that the House has already decided in voting upon it.

Mr. Davidson: On that point of order, is it not a fact that when the previous Amendment was discussed it was an amendment of words that did not deal with the onus on the defender or the pursuer? This is an Amendment which deals with the onus on the defender, and is it not a fact that on the previous Amendment a ruling was given that we could not discuss Clause 6, and does that not give us the right to discuss this Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In reply to the hon. Gentleman who raised the point of Order, the more it is discussed the more it comes into my mind that it is completely out of Order. I think I am bound to hold that this Amendment is contrary to the decision of the House already taken, and I must withdraw it from the House.

Miss Horsbrugh: In the ruling that was given at the beginning we were told we could not discuss this question until we came to Clause 6. When we were discussing the first Amendment we all kept off very carefully the question of onus. It is a very big point, and we kept off it because we believed that the question of onus was coming up on Clause 6. The ruling was, I understand, that we could not discuss the subject of onus because we were to discuss it on Clause 6. Therefore, I cannot speak on the subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In reply to the honourable Lady, Mr. Speaker later on ruled that the question of onus had been raised. The more I have listened to the debate the more I have become convinced that had the original Amendment to leave out line 15 been carried all this subsection would have been consequential and, therefore, the matter cannot be raised now.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Spens: On that Ruling, and with very great respect may I raise two points? The first Amendment was an Amendment

to prescribe that there should be five years' detention before a petition for divorce could be presented. That was the first Amendment and it had nothing whatever to do with what had to be proved or how it had to be proved when the petition had been presented. That Amendment was rejected, and it is therefore perfectly competent for any person to present a petition under this Bill, as the House has accepted it before there has been five years' detention at all. Now what this Clause prescribes is that if, in fact, there has been five years' detention and a petition is presented, then the pursuer can establish that, and there is a presumption in law that, having established that, there are grounds of incurable insanity. With very great respect, Sir, the two Amendments are on quite separate points. I, certainly, on the first Amendment spoke from one point of view only—that as in the English Act passed last year this House laid down that no petition should be presented until there had been five years' detention in a home, so in the Scottish Bill the law should be made the same and passed. With very great respect to you, I submit there are two separate points, and I would be grateful if I had an opportunity of speaking on the second.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think there is a mistake. There is nothing in Clause 1 saying that a petition cannot be presented before a certain time has elapsed. I must adhere to my Ruling.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. Foot: Perhaps I might give some assistance. I think that I was to blame when the matter was being raised on the previous Amendment when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. What happened was that certain honourable members had spoken on that Amendment without referring to Clause 6. When I got up I asked Mr. Speaker's guidance, pointing out that it was difficult to discuss the previous Amendment without referring to Clause 6. I pointed out I did not want to discuss the merits of Clause 6, but that in order to discuss the Amendment I did think it was necessary to refer to Clause 6. Then I think it was the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) who rose and endeavoured to preserve the Rules of the House without discussing Clause 6. At a later stage—I may be wrong—I think Mr. Speaker did say


that it would still be open to us to discuss the proposal contained in Clause 6, although the wider interpretation had been given on the earlier Amendment. The impression that was in my mind at the time when I rose to put that point was that by referring to Clause 6, and discussing the earlier Amendment we were not precluding ourselves from discussing this at this stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was a point I discussed with Mr. Speaker, and at the moment neither of us could see what was the difference between the first Amendment and the Amendment to leave out the Sub-section. We were not clear on that, and up to that moment we were prepared to give the House the benefit of the doubt; but listening to the debate has convinced me that the point has already been decided.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Mathers: The reason for our being disqualified from discussing the Amendment is because the point was previously included in the Amendment which sought to lay down in Clause I that there should be a period of five years before action could be taken. I submit that that particular point is preserved by the alteration of the Amendment by allowing the words to "person", in line 19, to stand part under the Bill, and that a new principle is raised in the subsequent words which deal with a matter we have not been able adequately to discuss—the question of the onus of proof of insanity being laid now on the defender instead of, as we who arc in favour of the Amendment consider, upon the pursuer of the action.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid I cannot take the hon. Member's point. The Amendment if carried would clearly mean that the Court would be able to grant a divorce on the terms which the House has decided it should not be able so to do. That is the position in which we are left. The more I have listened to the debate, the more I am convinced that this Amendment is contrary to the decision the House had already taken, and I must adhere to that and withdraw the Amendment from the House.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Further to that point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must adhere to my point and withdraw the Amendment from the House.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to move: In page 3, line 31, after "treatment" insert "(other than treatment as a voluntary patient)."
I do not think I need say very much about this other than that it is in fulfilment of a promise made during the Committee stage to see that treatment of voluntary patients does not come within this provision.

Mr. Graham Kerr: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, at the end, to insert "and not otherwise."
This, like the previous Amendment, is in fulfilment of an obligation incurred in the Committee stage to make it clear that no other form of presumption period should be allowed.

Mr. G. Kerr: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Citation.)

12.57 a.m.

Mr. G. Kerr: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, to leave out "and Nullity of Marriage."
This Amendment is merely consequential on the dropping of Clause 4 in Committee.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TITLE.

Mr. G. Kerr: I beg to move, in line 2, leave out "and nullity."

This amendment is also purely consequential.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. gentlemen can rise to oppose the Third Reading, but they cannot object to the Third Reading.

12.59 a.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I would remind the House that on this Bill—and I consider it an extremely important Bill which it has been difficult to discuss—we have had no opportunity for a Second Reading debate. Therefore, on each occasion whether in Committee or now, it has not been possible before to discuss the Bill as a whole. The first thing I would like to say is that it does make a very great change in the law of Scotland, and makes a change in more than one way, because the transferring of the onus from the pursuer to the defender is a change which the people of Scotland will view as quite astounding. Although we have had desertion as a ground for divorce for many years, the time has been extended, and the only other important change is the change of cruelty to which, I think it was the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) referred.
I agree with a great deal that the hon. Member for Shettles ton said on the subject of cruelty and desertion. The reason many of us thought it was more important to press the subject of incurable insanity was that, as hon. Members have pointed out, it brings something quite new into our divorce laws. It has to do with the subject of illness, and something over which neither party has the slightest control. It would have been very much better if, instead of coming here to discuss the divorce laws of Scotland, we had first discussed the marriage laws. I think we have begun from the wrong end. If there had first been legislation before the House dealing with the marriage laws, it would have been very much better, and would have been appreciated by Scotland and by many hon. Members in this House. I want to say once more that it would have been a far better thing if the experiment had been first tried in England, and we had waited to see the result.
It is a very bad thing that this Bill should come on the Statute Book at this time. It is not wanted in Scotland. It yeas brought here from another place as a Private Member's Bill. Furthermore, those Private Members who brought it forward had a great advantage in having

their case and the legal point of view put by the Lord Advocate. I think we would all agree that there is nobody in this House who can put a case more clearly and concisely, and win through, than the Lord Advocate. It is a very great thing for the promoters of the Bill that they should have had him to put their case so clearly. I know that the promoters have done their best to meet us. Clause 3 was added to the Bill on the Committee stage because of the difficulty at that time, and because it was felt very important that there should be some defence for the unfortunate insane person. The promoters met us on that and on a proviso put forward in another Amendment. We do appreciate it. I know that they went as far as they could, but there is that great gulf between us and there has been this change in the law.
Many of us would have liked to have had an opportunity of putting our points more clearly. Now it is going out from the House of Commons that in a case of divorce all the pursuer need prove is that the defender has been in an institution for a period of five years and the onus of attempting to prove that that is not incurable insanity is left to the insane person, namely, the person who'is to be divorced, and who has to face all the difficulties and worry coming from mental illness. I believe this is a bad Bill, and one which should not be carried through at this time. It will not help towards the happiness of the people of Scotland, nor will it bring better conditions in the homes. For these reasons, I oppose the Third Reading.

1.4 a.m.

Mr. Mathers: On a point of Order. There was an objection raised to the Third Reading being taken. The item on the Order Paper was for the Consideration of this Bill. The suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule was carried in order that the Consideration should be given, but not in order that the Third Reading should be taken. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order to proceed with the Third Reading now?

Mr. Speaker: The suspension Motion which allows this Bill to be taken after Eleven o'Clock is on Government business, and on the Divorce and Nullity of Marriage (Scotland) Bill. It does not exclude the Third Reading.

Mr. Mathers: The point of Order I am making is that the reference on the Order Paper is to the Consideration of this Bill. There is no indication in it that the Third Reading would be taken.

Mr. Speaker: That is often the case. The stage on the Paper is taken, and it very often follows that the Third Reading also is taken.

Mr. Mathers: My question is whether the Third Reading can be taken in these circumstances, seeing that hon. Members objected to it being taken?

Mr. Speaker: I have said that that is often done.

Sir Patrick Hannon: On that point of Order. Would it be in Order to appeal to the Lord Advocate and those responsible for the promotion of the Bill to defer the Third Reading? It is imposing on all hon. Members of the House a very great embarrassment at this time of the night to discuss a Bill which is, obviously, very controversial, and the speech of the hon. Lady indicates that it would be better that this Bill should be taken on another occasion.

Mr. Thurtle: Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that appeal, might I represent to him the desirability of carrying on and finishing the Bill, as we have sat for so long already?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to decide. It is entirely a matter for the House to decide.

Sir P. Hannon: May I respectfully put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill has been under consideration for a long time, controversial points have been raised and acute differences of opinion have arisen between Scottish Members. Is it not asking too much of the House to discuss the Third Reading at this hour?

Mr. Davidson: Further to that point of Order. As one who has taken his share in the criticism of the Bill, I put it to the House that we have had a full opportunity of criticising the Bill and moving Amendments. Having sat so long and having had that opportunity, we ought to see the Bill through. I suggest that any attempt to do otherwise is not for the purpose of further Consideration but for the purpose of hindering the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: What I said was that it was not for me to decide the matter at all, but for the House itself.

1.8 a.m.

Mr. Westwood: From the very introduction of this Bill—and it was not this Session but last Session—I have opposed that provision which would make incurable insanity a ground for divorce. But the House has decided that that is to be a ground for divorce in future, and, like a good democrat, I have to accept the decision of the majority. But I would remind the House that those who objected to the Bill, as previously brought from another place to this House, have been justified in their objections. The Bill now before the House is not the same Bill as came from another place last Session. First of all, mere insanity was to be a ground for divorce, and, secondly, it was to be insanity for a period of three years. Now, as the result of the objections that were raised twelve months ago, it is to be incurable insanity and for a period of five years, so that we have at least been justified in the opposition we raised, because this House has determined on a different period and on certain safeguards for the unfortunate individuals who may be declared to be insane, and whose spouse may desire to get a divorce because of that. Other safeguards in law have been provided in Clause 3 which are all to the good. I would remind the House that in the original Bill, as brought from another place, there was a Clause that dealt with criminality, but which was withdrawn. I am going to claim as a result of the objections taken twelve months ago, the debates in Committee and, further, the improvements that have been made on the Report stage, that those who made their objections then and during the various stages have been justified in the line they pursued in opposition to this Bill. I do not oppose divorce as divorce. There are justifications for persons being free and, as I have already stated, my objection to the Bill was because of that Clause dealing with incurable insanity. Like a good democat, however, I am willing to accept the decision of this House and in these circumstances I, for one, will not go into the Division Lobby to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Spens: Mr. Spens rose——

Mr. Davidson: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we have discussed this Bill only since 9 p.m. last night? I would draw the


attention of the House to the fact that we discussed the English Marriage Bill for many days and, therefore, may I appeal to those English Members here to go home and let us finish our Scottish business?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. Spens: It is obvious that the Scottish Bill is considerably in advance of the English Bill passed last year. It is on that ground that I must detain the House for a very few minutes tonight, because I know well what will happen in the next two or three years. An amending Bill will be brought in to bring the law in England into conformity with the law in Scotland. The Lord Advocate has said that Clause 6 is to enable the Bill to work. It is far more than that, as any lawyer knows. The law of presumption under the Bill is that in order to get a divorce for insanity you must have a preliminary five years' detention in a home before you can file a petition for divorce. Then you have to prove incurable insanity, and that detention has nothing whatever to do with your proof of incurable insanity. It is a matter to be taken into account when you bring your petition for divorce. Persons who have been incarcerated for five years and are still in such a mental state will have to have evidence given to the Court in regard to their state.
The Lord Advocate says there have been difficulties in the English Courts; but with great respect I think he is exaggerating. This Bill has the effect of providing that in the case of a person who files a petition for divorce and brings evidence that there has been five years' incarceration, the Court has to presume that the other person is incurably insane unless someone on behalf of him is present and is in a position to prove the contrary. The contrary that has to be proved is that the person is likely to recover. Where can you get that from? Speaking as an English lawyer I know if there is a presumption one way you have to rebut it with sufficient alternative evidence to make that presumption untenable. This is a tremendous step forward that a person should be able to go to the Court and say, "My Wife has been shut up for five years"; to bring forward some medical evidence that she is not likely to recover

and thereupon the whole burden of proving the contrary is cast upon the person representing the unfortunate person. I realise that this is a tremendous step forward as we have here divorce on the ground of insanity. I am unable myself to agree that this is just a matter of making an unworkable law in England work better in Scotland.

1.16 a.m.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: We have heard most momentous words from the Lord Advocate this evening. He has told us that the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, which we passed after such a long discussion, was a mistaken one and that, therefore, a new and better system is brought forward in order to be set up in Scotland. When questioned as to why certain Amendments could not be accepted, the only reply, so far as I can see, that he gave was that certain difficulties would arise in Scotland. I wonder very much what those difficulties are. I wonder if the difficulties would be found in the words of the Lord Advocate in the Committee upstairs when he was asked what is exactly meant by the words "unless the contrary is shown."—
If in any such case as this the medical evidence amounted to no more than this, that the probabilities of recovery are no greater and no less than in any other case of five years continuing insanity, the presumption would hold. If, on the other hand, the medical evidence could adduce any assignable reason for alleging that recovery within a definite period was more probable than in the general run of cases, the contrary would be proved and the presumption would be set aside. in other words, if the net result of the evidence is to leave the scales equally balanced as against recovery and non-recovery, the presumption would hold. If, on the other hand, the scales can be tipped in one particular case against the general run of cases, the presumption would disappear and the divorce would be refused.
The Lord Advocate went on to say there was no novelty in the matter. He said:
Certain conclusions follow if a person is found in possession of stolen goods, unless he can explain satisfactorily how they came into his possession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills); cols. 85–6, 24th May, 1938.]
That shows that the Lord Advocate and the promoters of the Bill think it a wise and proper course we are about to take that when a man or a woman is petitioned against in a civil case and has to defend it in the most difficult circumstances possible—where they have not their sanity


to assist their learned counsel in the courts to rebut the charge—the onus is to rest not on the pursuer to show that their insanity is incurable but on them to show that their malady is a curable malady. How on earth it is going to work in practice that an advocate representing a person who is mad is going to show that at a later stage that person will not be mad any more I cannot imagine. Yet that is the new law that is to be set up in Scotland.
There is another point. So far as I can see, the Court itself has no obligation in the matter. It will allow this duel to go on with the sides rather unfairly matched, and at the end of that time no doubt a judge will give a verdict. In the English Statute there is a different system. There is a safeguard in the Act of 1937.

Division No. 300.]
AYES.
[1.23a.m.


Alexender, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Foot, D. M.
Paling, W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fyfe, D. P. M
Parker, J.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barr, J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Price, M. P.


Benson, G.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bull, B. B.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Burghley, Lord
Hayday, A.
Russell, Sir Alexender


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Scott, Lord William


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Higgs, W. F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Holmes, J. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hunter, T.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jagger, J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Daggar, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dalton, H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Tomlinson, G.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Leach, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGovern, J.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Ede, J. C.
McKie, J. H.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macnamara, Major J. R. L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.



Everard, W. L.
Marshall, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fildes, Sir H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Mr. Erskine Hill and Mr. Graham


Findlay, Sir E.
Milner, Major J.
Kerr.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Spens. W. P.


Bossom, A. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cartland, J. R. H.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Mathers, G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wailsend)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Procter, Major H. A.
Wragg, H.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Ritson, J.



Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Salt, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Tinker and Miss Horsbrugh

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments, and with an amended Title (changed to "Divorce (Scotland) Bill [Lords]").

Orders of the Day — INHERITANCE (FAMILY PRO- VISION) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Wherever a petition is presented to the court an immediate duty is laid on the court itself because Section 4 reads:
After a petition for divorce it shall be the duty of the court to inquire so far as it reasonably can into the facts alleged.
I should have thought that if you were going to reverse the process of the law in Scotland, as you are about to do, you would, at any rate, have accompanied that by some parallel safeguard laying a duty on the court, as in the case of the English court. This omission will weight the scales even more heavily against the unfortunate defender who, it seems to me, will have less than justice.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 19.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTUAND).

1.40 a.m.

Sir Murdoch MacDonald: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying Him graciously to withhold


His approval to such parts of the Perth and Kinross Educational Trust Scheme, 1938, made under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1928, as may affect or refer to the McLaren Educational Trust, Callander, a copy of which scheme was presented to this House on the 20th day of May, 1938.
At this early hour of the morning may I say that this is the case of a trust deed left by a merchant banker in Callandar for the benefit of certain educational purposes. It was left about 1850, and in 1882 this House passed the Educational Endowment Act under which, in 1890, these particular funds were transferred. The reasons for objecting to this scheme are very clear and definite in this case. The Endowment Commissioners have joined together 51 schemes in Perthshire, and it is perfectly true under the Statute they are entitled to join together two or more schemes.
In this case they have joined 51 together, and of all the schemes this particular scheme is the largest. The income of this trust is about £900 to £1,000 while that of the whole scheme is about £3,900. This particular scheme has been a very successful one right from its inception. It enabled practically what we call secondary education to come in at an early stage in the town of Callandar than otherwise would have been possible. It converted the parish school into a secondary school, and, as a consequence, the Callandar High School became noted throughout the county and throughout Scotland. It was a pioneer in many ways in regard to educational matters, and, in particular, it was one of the pioneers for providing hostel accommodation for boys who came to be educated at the school. The original donor, Mr. McLaren, whose grandson is now chairman of the trustees, left an original

bequest which brought in £350 per annum, but by careful management, and by the aggregation of other bequests, the amount has increased to nearly £1,000.
Here, then, is a trust extremely well managed, and there seems to me no adequate reason why this scheme should be included with these minor schemes, seeing it was so well run throughout the years of its existence, and was bringing to itself other bequests. In these modern times it seems to me there is an aggregation of money in particular people's hands which is being devoted to various beneficial purposes throughout the country, but it does seem very desirable that, in addition to people with vast sums, other people should be encouraged to devote what they can for education and other purposes. It is very desirable that this trust should be exempted from the general aggregation of trusts which has been made in Perthshire.
There is one last thing I want to say, and that is that there has been in the minds of many legal authorities a distinct doubt, and even more than an expression of doubt, an expression of certainty in their minds, that this finding of the Commissioners was not valid for this reason. The Commission ended their duties on 31st December, 1936, and the same day they issued this scheme, but under the Act of Parliament regulating the matter it was necessary that two months should be allowed——

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present: House counted, and 40 Members not being present——

The House was adjourned at Ten Minutes before Two of the Clock until To-morrow.